Trends and comparisons of palliative care utilization for patients with metastatic gynecologic malignancy.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecological Cancer Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101631
Matthew W Lee, Intira Sriprasert, Peter G Phung, Christian Pino, Sabrina M Woll, Andrew Vallejo, Katelyn B Furey, Laila I Muderspach, Lynda D Roman, Jason D Wright, Koji Matsuo
{"title":"Trends and comparisons of palliative care utilization for patients with metastatic gynecologic malignancy.","authors":"Matthew W Lee, Intira Sriprasert, Peter G Phung, Christian Pino, Sabrina M Woll, Andrew Vallejo, Katelyn B Furey, Laila I Muderspach, Lynda D Roman, Jason D Wright, Koji Matsuo","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the use of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study queried the Commission-on-Cancer's National Cancer Database. The study population was 2,098,291 patients with stage IV malignancies from 2004 to 2020, including 5 gynecologic malignancies (uterine cervix, uterine corpus, tubo-ovary, vulva, and vagina) and 7 non-gynecologic malignancies (lung, pancreas, colorectum, breast, kidney, liver, and bladder), stratified by gender. Utilization rates and temporal trends of non-curative interventions (systemic therapy, surgery, radiotherapy) and palliative pain management in the first course of intervention were evaluated across the malignancy types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 19 gender-stratified malignancy groups, the median rate of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management use rate was 18.3%. All the gynecologic malignancies ranked below the median, including the 3 lowest groups (12.6%, 10.5%, and 7.8% for uterine corpus, vulva, and tubo-ovary, respectively). Non-curative interventions and palliative pain management use increased significantly in non-gynecologic malignancies, whereas utilization remained unchanged over several years for most gynecologic malignancies, including uterine cervix (19.8% to 20.1% for 2012-2020, p-trend = .744), uterine corpus (12.0% to 13.4% for 2013-2020, p-trend = .072), and tubo-ovary (8.3% to 9.2% for 2011-2020, p-trend = .311). Compared with non-gynecologic malignancies, patients with gynecologic malignancy were less likely to receive non-curative systemic therapy by 48% to 80% (all 5 types), non-curative surgery by 15% to 61% (all but vagina), non-curative radiotherapy by 37% to 95% (uterus, tubo-ovary, vulva), and palliative pain management by 18% to 45% (all 5 types) (all, adjusted-p < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cohort study, the initial utilization of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management has been unchanged for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy, and fewer patients receive palliative care than those with non-gynecologic malignancy, including palliative pain management. Possible under-utilization of palliative care services for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy call for attention and further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"101631"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101631","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the use of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy in the United States.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study queried the Commission-on-Cancer's National Cancer Database. The study population was 2,098,291 patients with stage IV malignancies from 2004 to 2020, including 5 gynecologic malignancies (uterine cervix, uterine corpus, tubo-ovary, vulva, and vagina) and 7 non-gynecologic malignancies (lung, pancreas, colorectum, breast, kidney, liver, and bladder), stratified by gender. Utilization rates and temporal trends of non-curative interventions (systemic therapy, surgery, radiotherapy) and palliative pain management in the first course of intervention were evaluated across the malignancy types.

Results: In 19 gender-stratified malignancy groups, the median rate of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management use rate was 18.3%. All the gynecologic malignancies ranked below the median, including the 3 lowest groups (12.6%, 10.5%, and 7.8% for uterine corpus, vulva, and tubo-ovary, respectively). Non-curative interventions and palliative pain management use increased significantly in non-gynecologic malignancies, whereas utilization remained unchanged over several years for most gynecologic malignancies, including uterine cervix (19.8% to 20.1% for 2012-2020, p-trend = .744), uterine corpus (12.0% to 13.4% for 2013-2020, p-trend = .072), and tubo-ovary (8.3% to 9.2% for 2011-2020, p-trend = .311). Compared with non-gynecologic malignancies, patients with gynecologic malignancy were less likely to receive non-curative systemic therapy by 48% to 80% (all 5 types), non-curative surgery by 15% to 61% (all but vagina), non-curative radiotherapy by 37% to 95% (uterus, tubo-ovary, vulva), and palliative pain management by 18% to 45% (all 5 types) (all, adjusted-p < .05).

Conclusions: In this cohort study, the initial utilization of non-curative interventions and palliative pain management has been unchanged for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy, and fewer patients receive palliative care than those with non-gynecologic malignancy, including palliative pain management. Possible under-utilization of palliative care services for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy call for attention and further investigation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转移性妇科恶性肿瘤患者姑息治疗应用的趋势和比较。
目的:评估美国晚期妇科恶性肿瘤患者非治愈性干预和姑息性疼痛管理的使用情况。方法:这项回顾性队列研究查询了癌症委员会的国家癌症数据库。研究对象为2004年至2020年的2098,291例IV期恶性肿瘤患者,包括5种妇科恶性肿瘤(宫颈、子宫体、输卵管卵巢、外阴和阴道)和7种非妇科恶性肿瘤(肺、胰腺、结肠直肠、乳房、肾脏、肝脏和膀胱),按性别分层。对不同恶性肿瘤类型的患者在第一疗程的非治愈性干预(全身治疗、手术、放疗)和姑息性疼痛管理的使用率和时间趋势进行了评估。结果:在19个按性别分层的恶性肿瘤组中,非治愈性干预和姑息性疼痛管理的中位使用率为18.3%。所有妇科恶性肿瘤均低于中位数,包括最低的3组(子宫体、外阴和输卵管卵巢分别为12.6%、10.5%和7.8%)。非妇科恶性肿瘤的非治愈性干预和缓解性疼痛管理的使用显著增加,而大多数妇科恶性肿瘤的使用率几年来保持不变,包括子宫颈(2012-2020年为19.8%至20.1%,p趋势= .744),子宫体(2013-2020年为12.0%至13.4%,p趋势= .072)和输卵管卵巢(2011-2020年为8.3%至9.2%,p趋势= .311)。与非妇科恶性肿瘤相比,妇科恶性肿瘤患者接受不可治愈的全身治疗的可能性为48%至80%(所有5种类型),不可治愈的手术为15%至61%(除阴道外),不可治愈的放疗为37%至95%(子宫,输卵管卵巢,外阴),姑息性疼痛治疗的可能性为18%至45%(所有5种类型)(均经校正,p < 0.05)。结论:在这项队列研究中,晚期妇科恶性肿瘤患者最初使用非治愈性干预措施和姑息性疼痛管理的情况没有变化,接受姑息性治疗的患者少于非妇科恶性肿瘤患者,包括姑息性疼痛管理。晚期妇科恶性肿瘤患者姑息治疗服务可能利用不足,需要引起注意并进一步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
期刊最新文献
Whole-transcriptome sequencing and machine learning detect molecular signatures of endometrial cancer in non-invasive vaginal swabs. Unnecessary exclusions: eligibility criteria in gynecologic oncology interventional clinical trials impairs access. Preoperative immunonutrition for patients who undergo primary cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer. Pelvic peritonectomy versus rectosigmoid resection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with Douglas pouch involvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mesonephric-like adenocarcinoma of the ovary: features of a rare and aggressive entity associated with endometriosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1