Surgery

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Geno Merli, MD, associate chief medical officer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, and long-time hospital medicine expert, recalled a recent situation at his center, during a panel discussion.

It involved a 70-year-old man who had a history of prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, and hernias. In January, he had a surgery for hernia repair. On the 3rd day after the procedure, he was transferred to the hospital medicine service at about 9 p.m. and was on a patient-controlled pump for pain and had abdominal drains. Because of the extensive surgery and because he had begun to walk shortly after the procedure, he wasn’t on thrombosis prevention medication, Dr. Merli explained at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The day after his transfer he was walking with a physical therapist when he became short of breath, his oxygen saturation dropped, and his heart rate soared. Bilateral pulmonary emboli were found, along with thrombosis in the right leg.

What was remarkable, Dr. Merli noted, was what the patient’s medical record was lacking.

He added, “I think if we start looking at this at our sites, we may find out that communication needs to be improved, and I believe standardized.”

This situation underscores the continuing need to refine handoffs between surgery and hospital medicine, a point in care that is primed for potential errors, the other panelists noted during the session.

Most important information is often not communicated

A 2010 study in pediatrics that looked at intern-to-intern handoffs found that the most important piece of information wasn’t communicated successfully 60% of the time – in other words, more often than not, the person on the receiving end didn’t really understand that crucial part of the scenario. Since then, the literature has been regularly populated with studies attempting to refine handoff procedures.

 Lily Ackermann, MD, hospitalist and clinical associate professor of medicine at Jefferson, said in the session that hospitalists need to be sure to reach out to surgery at important junctures in care.

 “I would say the No. 1 biggest mistake we make is not calling the surgery attending directly when clinical questions arise,” she said. “I think this is very important – attending [physician in hospital medicine] to attending [physician in surgery].”

 Murray Cohen, MD, director of acute care surgery at Jefferson, said he shared that concern.

“We want to be called, we want to be called for our patients,” he said in the session. “And we’re upset when you don’t call for our patients.”

Hospitalists should discuss blood loss, pain management, management of drains, deep vein thrombosis prevention, nutrition, infectious disease concerns, and timing of vaccines post procedure, Dr. Ackermann said during the presentation,

The panelists also emphasized that understanding the follow-up care that surgery was planning after a procedure is important, and to not just expect surgeons to actively follow a patient. They also reminded hospitalists to look at the wounds and make sure they understand how to handle the wounds going forward. Plus, when transferring a patient to surgery, hospitalists should understand when getting someone to surgery is urgent and not to order unnecessary tests as a formality when time is of the essence, they said.

IPASS: a formalized handoff process

The panelists all spoke highly of a formalized handoff process known as IPASS. This acronym reminds physicians to ask specific questions.

The I represents illness severity and calls for asking: “Is the patient stable or unstable?

The P stands for patient summary and is meant to prompt physicians to seek details about the procedure.

The A is for action list, which is meant to remind the physician to get the post-op plan for neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and other areas.

The first S is for situational awareness, and calls for asking: What is the biggest concern over the next 24 hours?

The final S represents synthesis by the receiver, prompting a physician to summarize the information he or she has received about the patient.

Natalie Margules, MD, a clinical instructor and hospitalist at Jefferson who did not present in the session, reiterated the value of the IPASS system. Before it was used for handoffs, she said, “I was never taught anything formalized – basically, just ‘Tell them what’s important.’

Dr. Margules noted that she considers the framework’s call for the synthesis to be one of it most useful parts.

 Dr. Merli, Dr. Ackermann, and Dr. Cohen reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

Augmentation mammaplasty, otherwise known as a breast augmentation, is one of the most common cosmetic procedures performed in cisgender females. Gynecologists routinely perform annual breast examinations and order screening mammography in cisgender women with breast implants. Similarly, there is an increasing number of transgender women seeking breast augmentation – with approximately 60%-70% of patients having desired or undergone the procedure.¹ Consequently, these patients are instructed by their surgeons to follow up with gynecologists for annual examinations and screening. While there are many similarities in technique and procedure, there are nuances in patient demographics, anatomy, and surgical technique that obstetricians/gynecologists should be aware of when examining these patients or prior to referring them to a surgeon for augmentation.²

Many patients who are dissatisfied with breast size from hormone therapy alone will seek out augmentation mammaplasty. In patients taking estrogen for hormone therapy, breast growth will commence around 2-3 months and peak over 1-2 years.³ Unlike chest surgery for transmasculine individuals, it is recommended that transfeminine patients seeking breast augmentation wait a minimum of 12 months before to surgery to allow for maximum breast enlargement. As with breast growth in cisgender females, the extent of breast development is multifactorial and varies from individual to individual. Current literature does not suggest that estrogen type or dose affects the ultimate breast size; however, younger age, tissue sensitivity, and body weight may affect breast volume.³ Referral to a genetic counselor and preoperative imaging may be necessary if a patient has a history concerning for a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer.

Implant selection and placement is determined by a variety of factors. While the overall principles of augmentation mammaplasty are essentially the same, there are anatomic differences in transfeminine patients that surgeons must take into consideration at the time of the consultation and during the surgery itself. For example, the pectoralis major muscle is more defined, there is a longer sternal notch-to-nipple distance, the chest wall is broader and more barrel-shaped, and there is a shorter distance between the nipple and the inframammary crease.^2-4 As a result of the broader chest wall, it is extremely difficult to achieve central cleavage even with larger implant selection. The surgeon must also ensure that the nipple and areola overlie the implant centrally. Medial placement of the implant will result in lateral displacement of the nipples, which can have an unsatisfactory cosmetic appearance.

Incision location can be axillary, inframammary, or even transareolar, although the latter is less common due to the smaller areolar size and larger implant choice.³ If the inframammary incision is used, it should be placed lower than the natural inframammary fold because the distance between the inferior areolar margin and inframammary fold is shorter and will expand after the implant is placed.⁴ While both saline and silicone implants are available, many surgeons (myself included), favor more form-stable silicone implants. Given the association between anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and textured implants, many surgeons also use nontextured, or smooth, cohesive gel silicone implants.⁵

Pocket selection of the implant itself can be subglandular – directly under the breast mound – or subpectoral – behind the pectoralis muscle. For patients with a pinch test of greater than 1.5 cm (outside of the area of the breast bud), good skin softening, and marked pectoralis hypertrophy, subglandular placement is reasonable.⁶ In thin patients with minimal breast development, subglandular placement can result in a “double-mound” appearance and can lead to visible implant edges on the periphery.⁶ Use of the subpectoral plane is more common and is associated with less implant visibility due to an increased amount of soft-tissue coverage and has lower rates of capsular contracture.⁴ However, due to the more robust pectoralis muscle in transfeminine patients, implant displacement can occur more frequently compared to subglandular placement. The surgeon and patient must have a thorough discussion about the location of the incision, implant material, and pocket placement along with the benefits and complications of the surgical plan.

Complications of augmentation mammaplasty are rare. However, when they occur it can include capsular contracture, breast asymmetry, hematoma formation, loss of nipple sensation, implant malposition, implant displacement below the inframammary crease, implant rupture, and need for revisional surgery.⁷ If an obstetrician/gynecologist observes any of the aforementioned findings in a postoperative patient, consultation and referral to a plastic surgeon is imperative.

Postoperative assessment and screening are mandatory in all patients who undergo breast augmentation. It is important for the gynecologist to note the incision placement, know the type of implant used (saline or silicone), and delineate where the implant was placed. If silicone implants are used, breast MRI is more sensitive in detecting implant rupture compared to mammography alone. Given the relatively poor epidemiologic data on breast cancer in transgender women, the Endocrine Society recommends that these patients follow the same screening guidelines as cisgender women.^4,6

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Wierckx K et al. J Sex Med. 2014;11(5):1240-7.

2. Mehra G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021 Jan 21;9(1):e3362. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003362.

3. Schecter LS, Schechter RB. Breast and chest surgery for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2020:73-81.

4. Colebunders B et al. Top surgery. In: Salgado CJ et al. ed. Gender Affirmation: Medical and Surgical Perspectives. New York, NY: Thieme, 2017:51-66.

5. De Boer M et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83-NP87.

6. Coon D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Jun;145(6):1343-53.

7. Kanhai RC et al. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209-11.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

The impact of a gynecologic cancer diagnosis reaches beyond the obvious side effects of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Many of our patients experience the quality-of-life–limiting side effects of abrupt hormone withdrawal as a consequence of our treatments. Assumptions are common, by both patients and providers, that hormonal therapy is unsafe after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis and that it is associated with an increased risk for recurrence. This sentiment likely originates from the fallout of the Womens’ Health Initiative (WHI) studies which showed an increased risk of breast cancer among users of combined estrogen and progesterone therapy.¹ While this may be true for breast cancer risk, when initiated early, hormonal therapy is safe, even beneficial, for many patients with a history of gynecologic cancer, and can significantly improve their quality of life in addition to reducing all-cause mortality and incidence of osteoporosis, dementia, and cardiovascular disease.²

Premenopausal women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer or preinvasive hyperplasia should be considered for ovarian preservation at the time of surgery. This strategy has been shown to be safe and not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. If oophorectomy is performed, hormonal therapy has been shown to be a safe remedy to the side effects of surgical menopause and the deleterious acceleration of bone loss and cardiovascular aging. The safety of hormone therapy for early-stage endometrial cancer has been thoroughly studied, including in a randomized controlled trial of more than 1,200 patients.³ This study showed no difference in the recurrence rate in users when compared with nonusers.

While hormone therapy is safe, from an oncologic standpoint, for women with a history of early-stage endometrial cancer other risks must also be considered. Given the association between endometrial cancer and obesity, these patients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, more so with the addition of exogenous hormone therapy. While not an overt contraindication to hormone prescription, obese patients who are prescribed these agents should be counseled regarding their risks for VTE.

The subgroup of patients with endometrial cancer in whom hormones should not be prescribed are those with advanced or recurrent disease. It is common for these tumors to express estrogen receptors, as evidenced by the responsiveness of these tumors to progesterone and antiestrogen treatments. Therefore, there is a theoretical risk for progression while using estrogen. In addition, as stated above, the risk of VTE is particularly elevated for women with metastatic malignancy receiving systemic therapies.

Cervical cancer commonly affects women of premenopausal age; therefore, early ovarian failure is particularly deleterious for this group of patients. Early-stage cervical cancer is most commonly treated with radical or extrafascial hysterectomy. Oophorectomy is not obligatory for the majority of these cases, and can be omitted in pre-, or perimenopausal patients to prevent surgical menopause. Ovarian metastases have been reported in cases of cervical adenocarcinoma, which led to the concern that ovarian preservation was not safe for this histology. However, recent data dispute this concern. A contemporary retrospective series of 105 patients with cervical adenocarcinoma identified no significant difference in overall survival when comparing those who had undergone ovarian preservation versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.⁴

Ovarian preservation during cervical cancer surgery may not be enough to prevent early menopause. Approximately 20% of cervical cancer patients may require postoperative radiation for high- or intermediate-risk disease (such as positive lymph nodes, or adverse features in the tumor). For these women, ovarian ablation results, even if the ovaries were preserved at the time of surgery. Transposition of the ovaries to a location outside of the potential radiation fields is a strategy to mitigate this risk. To achieve this, the preserved ovaries and their vascular pedicles are skeletonized. The ovaries are then sutured to the paracolic gutter peritoneum or similar location above the pelvic brim, taking care to ensure that the vascular pedicle is not compromised or twisted. Placement of radio-opaque surgical clips on the caudad aspect of the transposed ovary aids in their identification by radiation oncologists when planning their treatment fields.

Ovarian transposition is most commonly used for women who are undergoing definitive surgery for cervical cancer. However, this strategy can also be used as a lead-in procedure for young women with advanced cervical cancer in whom definitive chemoradiation is planned. If the ovaries cannot be spared or moved out of “harm’s way” for premenopausal women undergoing treatment with definitive radiation, hormone therapy may be necessary and is safe for patients with cervical cancer, including those with adenocarcinoma. If the patient has not undergone hysterectomy, a regimen that includes a combination of estrogen and progesterone is necessary to avoid carcinogenic effects of unopposed estrogen on an intact endometrium, even after radiation has ablated those tissues.

When ovarian and fallopian cancers arise in premenopausal patients and appear confined to a single adnexa, contralateral ovarian preservation can be considered. However, for advanced disease, this is usually not possible or appropriate. Given that most ovarian cancers arise in a postmenopausal population, these patients may be preexisting users of hormone therapy. The data, including a randomized controlled trial, would suggest that it is safe to continue to use hormone therapy during or following a diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and that it is not associated with worse outcomes from their cancer.⁵

Once again, patients should be carefully counseled about the additive risks for VTE that come from metastatic ovarian cancer, surgery via laparotomy, and exogenous hormonal therapy. However, these patients need not be subjected to an abrupt transition to menopause, because level I evidence suggests that these therapies are not associated with worse oncologic outcomes. All patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer should receive genetic testing, and if deleterious mutations are found in BRCA 1 or 2 genes indicating an elevated risk for breast cancer, decision making regarding continued exogenous hormonal therapy is complicated. The most contemporary data, including long-term follow-up from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, do not suggest an increased risk for breast cancer with estrogen-only preparations of hormone therapy.⁶ Given that most women with gynecologic cancers have undergone hysterectomy as part of their treatment, these estrogen-only preparations are appropriate for most.

For patients with rare tumors, such as endometrial stromal tumors or uterine leiomyosarcoma, the safety of exogenous hormone therapy should be dictated by the receptor profile of their particular cancer. Many of these cancers express estrogen receptors; therefore, current guidelines recommend against the use of hormones after these diagnoses when estrogen receptors are expressed.

Gynecologic cancer treatments induce many toxicities with long-term deleterious effects on quality of life. Use of hormones to mitigate the symptoms of menopause is an important tool in the toolkit for gynecologists. Assumptions should not be made that hormonal therapies are always unsafe for all of these patients. It is important to closely evaluate the patient’s tumor and other risk factors before withholding potentially valuable therapies.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA. 2010 Oct 20;304(15):1684-92.

2. Sinno AK et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):303-6.

3. Barakat et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

4. Hu Jun et al. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;37(8):1065-9.

5. Eeles R et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4138-44.

6. Chlebowski R et al. JAMA Jul 28 2020;324(4):369-80.

Most surgeons report being affected by performance anxiety in relation to their work, with the anxiety frequently having a negative effect on well-being, a new study of surgeons in the United Kingdom shows.

“Performance anxiety or stage fright is a widely recognized problem in music and sports, and there are many similarities between these arenas and the operating theater,” first author Robert Miller, MRCS, of the Surgical Psychology and Performance Group and the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in an interview. “We were aware of it anecdotally in a surgical context, but for one reason or another, perhaps professional pride and fear of negative perception, this is rarely openly discussed amongst surgeons.”

In the cross-sectional study, published in Annals of Surgery, Dr. Miller and colleagues surveyed surgeons in all specialties working in the United Kingdom who had at least 1 year of postgraduate surgical training.

Of a total of 631 responses received, 523 (83%) were included in the analysis. The median age of those who responded was 41.2 years, and the mean duration of surgical experience was 15.3 years (range, 1-52 years). Among them, 62% were men, and 52% were of consultant/attending grade.

All of the respondents – 100% – said they believed that performance anxiety affected surgeons, 87% reported having experienced it themselves, and 65% said they felt that performance anxiety had an effect on their surgical performance.

Both male and female surgeons who reported experiencing performance anxiety had significantly worse mental well-being, as assessed using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, compared with those who did not have performance anxiety (P < .0001 for men and P < .001 for women).

Overall, however, male surgeons had significantly better mental well-being, compared with female surgeons (P = .003), yet both genders had significantly lower mental well-being scores compared with U.K. population norms (P = .0019 for men and P = .0001 for women).

The gender differences are “clearly an important topic, which is likely multifactorial,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “The gender well-being gap requires more in-depth research, and qualitative work involving female surgeons is critical.”

Surgical perfectionism was significantly more common among respondents who did have performance anxiety in comparison with those who did not (P < .0001).

“Although perfectionism may be a beneficial trait in surgery, our findings from hierarchical multiple regression analysis also indicate that perfectionism, [as well as] sex and experience, may drive surgical performance anxiety and help predict those experiencing [the anxiety],” the authors noted.
 

Performing in presence of colleagues a key trigger

By far, the leading trigger that was identified as prompting surgeon performance anxiety was the presence – and scrutiny – of colleagues within the parent specialty. This was reported by 151 respondents. Other triggers were having to perform on highly complex or high-risk cases (66 responses) and a lack of experience (30 responses).

Next to planning and preparation, opening up and talking about the anxiety and shedding light on the issue was seen as a leading strategy to help with the problem, but very few respondents reported openly sharing their struggles. Only 9% reported that they had shared it openly; 27% said they had confided in someone, and 47% did not respond to the question.

“I wish we talked about it more and shared our insecurities,” one respondent lamented. “Most of my colleagues pretend they are living gods.”

Only about 45% of respondents reported a specific technique for overcoming their anxiety. In addition to being open about the problem, other techniques included self-care, such as exercise; and distraction outside of work to get perspective; relaxation techniques such as deep or controlled breathing; music; mindfulness; and positive self-statements.

About 9% said they had received psychological counseling for performance anxiety, and only 3% reported using medication for the problem.
 

Anxiety a positive factor?

Surprisingly, 70% of respondents reported feeling that surgical performance anxiety could have a positive impact on surgical performance, which the authors noted is consistent with some theories.

“This may be explained by the traditional bell-curve relationship between arousal and performance, which describes a dose-dependent relationship between performance and arousal until a ‘tipping point,’ after which performance declines,” the authors explained. “A heightened awareness secondary to anxiety may be beneficial, but at high doses, anxiety can negatively affect attentional control and cause somatic symptoms.”

They noted that “the challenge would be to reap the benefits of low-level stimulation without incurring possible adverse effects.”

Dr. Miller said that, in determining whether selection bias had a role in the results, a detailed analysis showed that “our respondents were not skewed to those with only high levels of trait anxiety.

“We also had a good spread of consultants versus trainees [about half and half], and different specialties, so we feel this is likely to be a representative sample,” he told this news organization.

That being said, the results underscore the need for increased awareness – and open discussion – of the issue of surgical performance anxiety.

“Within other professions, particularly the performing arts and sports, performance psychology is becoming an integral part of training and development,” Dr. Miller said. “We feel surgeons should be supported in a similar manner.

“Surgical performance anxiety is normal for surgeons at all levels and not something to be ashamed about,” Dr. Miller added. “Talk about it, acknowledge it, and be supportive to your colleagues.”
 

Many keep it to themselves in ‘prevailing culture of stoicism’

Commenting on the study, Carter C. Lebares, MD, an associate professor of surgery and director of the Center for Mindfulness in Surgery, department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, said she was not surprised to see the high rates of performance anxiety among surgeons.

“As surgeons, no matter how hard we train or how thoroughly we prepare our intellectual understanding or the patient, the disease process, and the operation, there may be surprises, unforeseen challenges, or off days,” Dr. Lebares said.

“And whatever we encounter, we are managing these things directly under the scrutiny of others – people who can affect our reputation, operating privileges, and mental health. So, I am not surprised this is a prevalent and widely recognized issue.”

Dr. Lebares noted that the reluctance to share the anxiety is part of a “challenging and recognized conundrum in both medicine and surgery and is a matter of the prevailing culture of stoicism.

“We often are called to shoulder tremendous weight intraoperatively (having perseverance, self-confidence, or sustained focus), and in owning the weight of complications (which eventually we all will have),” she said.

“So, we do need to be strong and not complain, [but] we also need to be able to set that aside [when appropriate] and ask for help or allow others to shoulder the weight for a while, and this is not [yet] a common part of surgical culture.”

Dr. Lebares added that randomized, controlled trials have shown benefits of mindfulness interventions on burnout and anxiety.

“We have observed positive effects on mental noise, self-perception, conflict resolution, and resilience in surgical residents trained in mindfulness-based cognitive skills,” she said. “[Residents] report applying these skills in the OR, in their home lives, and in how they approach their training/education.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lebares has developed mindfulness-based cognitive skills training for surgeons but receives no financial compensation for the activities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most surgeons report being affected by performance anxiety in relation to their work, with the anxiety frequently having a negative effect on well-being, a new study of surgeons in the United Kingdom shows.

“Performance anxiety or stage fright is a widely recognized problem in music and sports, and there are many similarities between these arenas and the operating theater,” first author Robert Miller, MRCS, of the Surgical Psychology and Performance Group and the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in an interview. “We were aware of it anecdotally in a surgical context, but for one reason or another, perhaps professional pride and fear of negative perception, this is rarely openly discussed amongst surgeons.”

In the cross-sectional study, published in Annals of Surgery, Dr. Miller and colleagues surveyed surgeons in all specialties working in the United Kingdom who had at least 1 year of postgraduate surgical training.

Of a total of 631 responses received, 523 (83%) were included in the analysis. The median age of those who responded was 41.2 years, and the mean duration of surgical experience was 15.3 years (range, 1-52 years). Among them, 62% were men, and 52% were of consultant/attending grade.

All of the respondents – 100% – said they believed that performance anxiety affected surgeons, 87% reported having experienced it themselves, and 65% said they felt that performance anxiety had an effect on their surgical performance.

Both male and female surgeons who reported experiencing performance anxiety had significantly worse mental well-being, as assessed using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, compared with those who did not have performance anxiety (P < .0001 for men and P < .001 for women).

Overall, however, male surgeons had significantly better mental well-being, compared with female surgeons (P = .003), yet both genders had significantly lower mental well-being scores compared with U.K. population norms (P = .0019 for men and P = .0001 for women).

The gender differences are “clearly an important topic, which is likely multifactorial,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “The gender well-being gap requires more in-depth research, and qualitative work involving female surgeons is critical.”

Surgical perfectionism was significantly more common among respondents who did have performance anxiety in comparison with those who did not (P < .0001).

“Although perfectionism may be a beneficial trait in surgery, our findings from hierarchical multiple regression analysis also indicate that perfectionism, [as well as] sex and experience, may drive surgical performance anxiety and help predict those experiencing [the anxiety],” the authors noted.
 

Performing in presence of colleagues a key trigger

By far, the leading trigger that was identified as prompting surgeon performance anxiety was the presence – and scrutiny – of colleagues within the parent specialty. This was reported by 151 respondents. Other triggers were having to perform on highly complex or high-risk cases (66 responses) and a lack of experience (30 responses).

Next to planning and preparation, opening up and talking about the anxiety and shedding light on the issue was seen as a leading strategy to help with the problem, but very few respondents reported openly sharing their struggles. Only 9% reported that they had shared it openly; 27% said they had confided in someone, and 47% did not respond to the question.

“I wish we talked about it more and shared our insecurities,” one respondent lamented. “Most of my colleagues pretend they are living gods.”

Only about 45% of respondents reported a specific technique for overcoming their anxiety. In addition to being open about the problem, other techniques included self-care, such as exercise; and distraction outside of work to get perspective; relaxation techniques such as deep or controlled breathing; music; mindfulness; and positive self-statements.

About 9% said they had received psychological counseling for performance anxiety, and only 3% reported using medication for the problem.
 

Anxiety a positive factor?

Surprisingly, 70% of respondents reported feeling that surgical performance anxiety could have a positive impact on surgical performance, which the authors noted is consistent with some theories.

“This may be explained by the traditional bell-curve relationship between arousal and performance, which describes a dose-dependent relationship between performance and arousal until a ‘tipping point,’ after which performance declines,” the authors explained. “A heightened awareness secondary to anxiety may be beneficial, but at high doses, anxiety can negatively affect attentional control and cause somatic symptoms.”

They noted that “the challenge would be to reap the benefits of low-level stimulation without incurring possible adverse effects.”

Dr. Miller said that, in determining whether selection bias had a role in the results, a detailed analysis showed that “our respondents were not skewed to those with only high levels of trait anxiety.

“We also had a good spread of consultants versus trainees [about half and half], and different specialties, so we feel this is likely to be a representative sample,” he told this news organization.

That being said, the results underscore the need for increased awareness – and open discussion – of the issue of surgical performance anxiety.

“Within other professions, particularly the performing arts and sports, performance psychology is becoming an integral part of training and development,” Dr. Miller said. “We feel surgeons should be supported in a similar manner.

“Surgical performance anxiety is normal for surgeons at all levels and not something to be ashamed about,” Dr. Miller added. “Talk about it, acknowledge it, and be supportive to your colleagues.”
 

Many keep it to themselves in ‘prevailing culture of stoicism’

Commenting on the study, Carter C. Lebares, MD, an associate professor of surgery and director of the Center for Mindfulness in Surgery, department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, said she was not surprised to see the high rates of performance anxiety among surgeons.

“As surgeons, no matter how hard we train or how thoroughly we prepare our intellectual understanding or the patient, the disease process, and the operation, there may be surprises, unforeseen challenges, or off days,” Dr. Lebares said.

“And whatever we encounter, we are managing these things directly under the scrutiny of others – people who can affect our reputation, operating privileges, and mental health. So, I am not surprised this is a prevalent and widely recognized issue.”

Dr. Lebares noted that the reluctance to share the anxiety is part of a “challenging and recognized conundrum in both medicine and surgery and is a matter of the prevailing culture of stoicism.

“We often are called to shoulder tremendous weight intraoperatively (having perseverance, self-confidence, or sustained focus), and in owning the weight of complications (which eventually we all will have),” she said.

“So, we do need to be strong and not complain, [but] we also need to be able to set that aside [when appropriate] and ask for help or allow others to shoulder the weight for a while, and this is not [yet] a common part of surgical culture.”

Dr. Lebares added that randomized, controlled trials have shown benefits of mindfulness interventions on burnout and anxiety.

“We have observed positive effects on mental noise, self-perception, conflict resolution, and resilience in surgical residents trained in mindfulness-based cognitive skills,” she said. “[Residents] report applying these skills in the OR, in their home lives, and in how they approach their training/education.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lebares has developed mindfulness-based cognitive skills training for surgeons but receives no financial compensation for the activities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most surgeons report being affected by performance anxiety in relation to their work, with the anxiety frequently having a negative effect on well-being, a new study of surgeons in the United Kingdom shows.

“Performance anxiety or stage fright is a widely recognized problem in music and sports, and there are many similarities between these arenas and the operating theater,” first author Robert Miller, MRCS, of the Surgical Psychology and Performance Group and the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery at St. George’s Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in an interview. “We were aware of it anecdotally in a surgical context, but for one reason or another, perhaps professional pride and fear of negative perception, this is rarely openly discussed amongst surgeons.”

In the cross-sectional study, published in Annals of Surgery, Dr. Miller and colleagues surveyed surgeons in all specialties working in the United Kingdom who had at least 1 year of postgraduate surgical training.

Of a total of 631 responses received, 523 (83%) were included in the analysis. The median age of those who responded was 41.2 years, and the mean duration of surgical experience was 15.3 years (range, 1-52 years). Among them, 62% were men, and 52% were of consultant/attending grade.

All of the respondents – 100% – said they believed that performance anxiety affected surgeons, 87% reported having experienced it themselves, and 65% said they felt that performance anxiety had an effect on their surgical performance.

Both male and female surgeons who reported experiencing performance anxiety had significantly worse mental well-being, as assessed using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, compared with those who did not have performance anxiety (P < .0001 for men and P < .001 for women).

Overall, however, male surgeons had significantly better mental well-being, compared with female surgeons (P = .003), yet both genders had significantly lower mental well-being scores compared with U.K. population norms (P = .0019 for men and P = .0001 for women).

The gender differences are “clearly an important topic, which is likely multifactorial,” Dr. Miller told this news organization. “The gender well-being gap requires more in-depth research, and qualitative work involving female surgeons is critical.”

Surgical perfectionism was significantly more common among respondents who did have performance anxiety in comparison with those who did not (P < .0001).

“Although perfectionism may be a beneficial trait in surgery, our findings from hierarchical multiple regression analysis also indicate that perfectionism, [as well as] sex and experience, may drive surgical performance anxiety and help predict those experiencing [the anxiety],” the authors noted.
 

Performing in presence of colleagues a key trigger

By far, the leading trigger that was identified as prompting surgeon performance anxiety was the presence – and scrutiny – of colleagues within the parent specialty. This was reported by 151 respondents. Other triggers were having to perform on highly complex or high-risk cases (66 responses) and a lack of experience (30 responses).

Next to planning and preparation, opening up and talking about the anxiety and shedding light on the issue was seen as a leading strategy to help with the problem, but very few respondents reported openly sharing their struggles. Only 9% reported that they had shared it openly; 27% said they had confided in someone, and 47% did not respond to the question.

“I wish we talked about it more and shared our insecurities,” one respondent lamented. “Most of my colleagues pretend they are living gods.”

Only about 45% of respondents reported a specific technique for overcoming their anxiety. In addition to being open about the problem, other techniques included self-care, such as exercise; and distraction outside of work to get perspective; relaxation techniques such as deep or controlled breathing; music; mindfulness; and positive self-statements.

About 9% said they had received psychological counseling for performance anxiety, and only 3% reported using medication for the problem.
 

Anxiety a positive factor?

Surprisingly, 70% of respondents reported feeling that surgical performance anxiety could have a positive impact on surgical performance, which the authors noted is consistent with some theories.

“This may be explained by the traditional bell-curve relationship between arousal and performance, which describes a dose-dependent relationship between performance and arousal until a ‘tipping point,’ after which performance declines,” the authors explained. “A heightened awareness secondary to anxiety may be beneficial, but at high doses, anxiety can negatively affect attentional control and cause somatic symptoms.”

They noted that “the challenge would be to reap the benefits of low-level stimulation without incurring possible adverse effects.”

Dr. Miller said that, in determining whether selection bias had a role in the results, a detailed analysis showed that “our respondents were not skewed to those with only high levels of trait anxiety.

“We also had a good spread of consultants versus trainees [about half and half], and different specialties, so we feel this is likely to be a representative sample,” he told this news organization.

That being said, the results underscore the need for increased awareness – and open discussion – of the issue of surgical performance anxiety.

“Within other professions, particularly the performing arts and sports, performance psychology is becoming an integral part of training and development,” Dr. Miller said. “We feel surgeons should be supported in a similar manner.

“Surgical performance anxiety is normal for surgeons at all levels and not something to be ashamed about,” Dr. Miller added. “Talk about it, acknowledge it, and be supportive to your colleagues.”
 

Many keep it to themselves in ‘prevailing culture of stoicism’

Commenting on the study, Carter C. Lebares, MD, an associate professor of surgery and director of the Center for Mindfulness in Surgery, department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, said she was not surprised to see the high rates of performance anxiety among surgeons.

“As surgeons, no matter how hard we train or how thoroughly we prepare our intellectual understanding or the patient, the disease process, and the operation, there may be surprises, unforeseen challenges, or off days,” Dr. Lebares said.

“And whatever we encounter, we are managing these things directly under the scrutiny of others – people who can affect our reputation, operating privileges, and mental health. So, I am not surprised this is a prevalent and widely recognized issue.”

Dr. Lebares noted that the reluctance to share the anxiety is part of a “challenging and recognized conundrum in both medicine and surgery and is a matter of the prevailing culture of stoicism.

“We often are called to shoulder tremendous weight intraoperatively (having perseverance, self-confidence, or sustained focus), and in owning the weight of complications (which eventually we all will have),” she said.

“So, we do need to be strong and not complain, [but] we also need to be able to set that aside [when appropriate] and ask for help or allow others to shoulder the weight for a while, and this is not [yet] a common part of surgical culture.”

Dr. Lebares added that randomized, controlled trials have shown benefits of mindfulness interventions on burnout and anxiety.

“We have observed positive effects on mental noise, self-perception, conflict resolution, and resilience in surgical residents trained in mindfulness-based cognitive skills,” she said. “[Residents] report applying these skills in the OR, in their home lives, and in how they approach their training/education.”

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lebares has developed mindfulness-based cognitive skills training for surgeons but receives no financial compensation for the activities.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced serious bleeding without a significant effect on major vascular outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery at risk for these complications in the POISE-3 trial.

TXA cut the primary efficacy outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding at 30 days by 24% compared with placebo (9.1% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P < .0001).

The primary safety outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 30 days occurred in 14.2% vs.. 13.9% of patients, respectively (HR, 1.023). This failed, however, to meet the study›s threshold to prove TXA noninferior to placebo (one-sided P = .044).

There was no increased risk for death or stroke with TXA, according to results published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Principal investigator P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pointed out that there is only a 4.4% probability that the composite vascular outcome hazard ratio was above the noninferiority margin and that just 10 events separated the two groups (649 vs.. 639).

“Healthcare providers and patients will have to weigh a clear beneficial reduction in the composite bleeding outcome, which is an absolute difference of 2.7%, a result that was highly statistically significant, versus a low probability of a small increase in risk of the composite vascular endpoint, with an absolute difference of 0.3%,” a nonsignificant result, Dr. Devereaux said during the formal presentation of the results at the hybrid annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings, he said, should also be put in the context that 300 million adults have a major surgery each year worldwide and most don’t receive TXA. At the same time, there’s an annual global shortage of 30 million blood product units, and surgical bleeding accounts for up to 40% of all transfusions.

“POISE-3 identifies that use of TXA could avoid upwards of 8 million bleeding events resulting in transfusion on an annual basis, indicating potential for large public health and clinical benefit if TXA become standard practice in noncardiac surgery,” Dr. Devereaux said during the late-breaking trial session.

TXA is indicated for heavy menstrual bleeding and hemophilia and has been used in cardiac surgery, but it is increasingly being used in noncardiac surgeries. As previously reported, POISE showed that the beta-blocker metoprolol lowered the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk for severe stroke and overall death, whereas in POISE-2, perioperative low-dose aspirin lowered the risk for MI but was linked to more major bleeding.

The cumulative data have not shown an increased risk for thrombotic events in other settings, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

“I’m a cardiologist, and I think that we’ve been guilty at times of always only focusing on the thrombotic side of the equation and ignoring that bleeding is a very important aspect of the circulatory system,” he said. “And I think this shows for the first time clear unequivocal evidence that there’s a cheap, very encouraging, safe way to prevent this.”

“An important point is that if you can give tranexamic acid and prevent bleeding in your cardiac patients having noncardiac surgery, then you can prevent the delay of reinitiating their anticoagulants and their antiplatelets after surgery and getting them back on the medications that are important for them to prevent their cardiovascular event,” Dr. Devereaux added.

Discussant Michael J. Mack, MD, commented that TXA, widely used in cardiac surgery, is an old, inexpensive drug that “should be more widely used in noncardiac surgery.” Dr. Mack, from Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, added that he would limit it to major noncardiac surgery.

International trial

PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) investigators at 114 hospitals in 22 countries (including countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa; Russia; India; and Australia) randomly assigned 9,535 patients, aged 45 years or older, with or at risk for cardiovascular and bleeding complications to receive a TXA 1-g intravenous bolus or placebo at the start and end of inpatient noncardiac surgery.

Patients taking at least one long-term antihypertensive medication were also randomly assigned to a perioperative hypotension- or hypertension-avoidance strategy, which differ in the use of antihypertensives on the morning of surgery and the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Results from these cohorts will be presented in a separate session on April 4.

The study had planned to enroll 10,000 patients but was stopped early by the steering committee because of financial constraints resulting from slow enrollment during the pandemic. The decision was made without knowledge of the trial results but with knowledge that aggregate composite bleeding and vascular outcomes were higher than originally estimated, Dr. Devereaux noted.

Among all participants, the mean age was 70 years, 56% were male, almost a third had coronary artery disease, 15% had peripheral artery disease, and 8% had a prior stroke. About 80% were undergoing major surgery. Adherence to the study medications was 96.3% in both groups.

Secondary bleeding outcomes were lower in the TXA and placebo groups, including bleeding independently associated with mortality after surgery (8.7% vs. 11.3%), life-threatening bleeding (1.6% vs. 1.7%), major bleeding (7.6% vs. 10.4%), and critical organ bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%).

Importantly, the TXA group had significantly lower rates of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding (6.6% vs. 8.7%; P = .0001) and the need for transfusion of 1 or more units of packed red blood cells (9.4% vs. 12.0%; P <.0001), Dr. Devereaux noted.

In terms of secondary vascular outcomes, there were no significant differences between the TXA and placebo groups in rates of MINS (12.8% vs. 12.6%), MINS not fulfilling definition of MI (both 11.5%), MI (1.4% vs. 1.1%), and the net risk-benefit outcome (a composite of vascular death and nonfatal life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding, MINS, stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and symptomatic proximal VTE; 20.7% vs. 21.9%).

The two groups had similar rates of all-cause (1.1% vs. 1.2%) and vascular (0.5% vs. 0.6%) mortality.

There also were no significant differences in other tertiary outcomes, such as acute kidney injury (14.1% vs. 13.7%), rehospitalization for vascular reasons (1.8% vs. 1.6%), or seizures (0.2% vs. <0.1%). The latter has been a concern, with the risk reported to increase with higher doses.

Subgroup analyses

Preplanned subgroup analyses showed a benefit for TXA over placebo for the primary efficacy outcome in orthopedic and nonorthopedic surgery and in patients with hemoglobin level below 120 g/L or 120 g/L or higher, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or 45 mL/min/1.73 m ²  or higher, or with an N-terminal pro– B-type natriuretic peptide level below 200 ng/L or 200 ng/L or higher.

For the primary safety outcome, the benefit favored placebo but the interaction was not statistically significant for any of the four subgroups.

A post hoc subgroup analysis also showed similar results across the major categories of surgery, including general, vascular, urologic, and gynecologic, Dr. Devereaux told this news organization.

Although TXA is commonly used in orthopedic procedures, Dr. Devereaux noted, in other types of surgeries, “it’s not used at all.” But because TXA “is so cheap, and we can apply it to a broad population, even at an economic level it looks like it’s a winner to give to almost all patients having noncardiac surgery.”

The team also recently published a risk prediction tool that can help estimate a patient’s baseline risk for bleeding.

“So just using a model, which will bring together the patient’s type of surgery and their risk factors, you can look to see, okay, this is enough risk of bleeding, I’m just going to give tranexamic acid,” he said. “We will also be doing economic analyses because blood is also not cheap.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the Research Grant Council (Hong Kong). Dr. Devereaux reports research/research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Philips Healthcare, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens. Dr. Mack reports receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Wednesday, March 30. Day 3 of SGS.

The final day of #SGS2022 began with the last round of oral and video presentations on topics including: the efficacy and safety of restrictive blood transfusion protocols in gynecologic surgical patients, restricted opioid use following midurethral sling procedures, and the efficacy of trigger point injections for myofascial pelvic pain. Next, the prestigious Distinguished Surgeon Award was presented to Dr. Jeffrey Cornella, professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, for his contributions to the field of gynecologic surgery.

This was followed by the passing of the presidential gavel from current SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman to incoming president Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, Director of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC, and Director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery (NCAPS) at Medstar Health. Dr. Iglesia has been internationally and nationally recognized for her work in advancing the field of pelvic surgery and urogynecology through extensive research, clinical excellence, and support of medical education.

Needless to say, #SGS2022 was a huge success! While many of us are sad to leave San Antonio today, we are returning to our respective programs feeling motivated and rejuvenated. There is nothing more inspiring than spending time with such a highly committed group of physicians who strive to improve patient care through their excellent contributions to research and medical education. I am grateful for the new mentors, colleagues, and friends I have met at this meeting.

Thank you to the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and OBG Management for giving me the opportunity to reflect on my experience at #SGS2022, as well as the companies that support the Fellows Scholar program.

I can’t wait to attend the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting in Tuscon, Arizona, in 2023!

Tuesday, March 29, 2022. Day 2 of SGS.

The second day of #SGS2022 began with several academic roundtables on a variety of topics including hysteroscopy, uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries, how to select patients for vaginal hysterectomy, and the role of minimally invasive surgery in transabdominal cerclage. The general session continued with more outstanding poster and video presentations that were followed by the annual presidential address. SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman spoke about the changing surgical landscape and SGS’s commitment to improving surgical education: “The women of America and the world deserve better.” He went on to announce the creation of a presidential task force on surgical training, whose members will include: Dr. Ted Anderson, Dr. Emily Weber LeBrun, and Dr. Mike Moen.

This year’s TeLinde Lecture was given by the executive director of the American College of Surgeons, Dr. Dr. Patricia Turner. Her talk was entitled, “Surgeons: More to Unite Us Than Divide Us.” Dr. Turner began by reminding us of the shared history between general surgery and gynecologic surgery. In fact, the American College of Surgeons was founded by gynecologist Dr. Franklin H. Martin. She went on to thoughtfully discuss the need to rethink surgical training and the way we assess surgical trainees. She highlighted the importance of collaboration between all surgical specialties to improve surgical education, improve outcomes, and advocate for patients. “In order to heal all, we have to have ALL surgeons at the table.”

Today’s general session was concluded with a panel discussion on “Operating Room Safety and Efficiency” in which Dr. Kenneth Catchpole, Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, and Dr. Jason Wright shared some interesting ideas on how we can improve patient care in the operating room. The afternoon continued with a number of social activities, providing an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful landscape of San Antonio, Texas, including: a tour of Eisenhower park, kayaking on the Guadelupe River, and the SGS golf tournament.

The fun continued into the evening at the annual “SGS’ Got Talent” in which participants could be spotted in cowboy hats, bandanas, and boots. The night was filled with food, drinks, laughter, and line dancing! #SGS2022

 

Monday, March 28, 2022. Day 1 of SGS.

“How do you become brave? How do you become an advocate? How do you make a change?” These are just some of the questions asked during our thought-provoking early morning session entitled, “Healthcare Inequity Awareness—A Conversation to Empower Providers and Enhance the Patient Experience” at this year’s annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons #SGS2022. The panelists, which included Dr. Olivia Cardenas-Trowers, Dr. Maria Florian-Rodriguez, and Dr. Tristi Muir, emphasized the importance of acknowledging our own bias as physicians, as well as the role structural racism plays in the health care access and outcomes of our patients. We were reminded that “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (aka DEI) is a journey. It is progress over time, not over night.”

Following the early morning panel, the 48th annual scientific meeting officially began with a brief welcome and recognition of new SGS members by current president Dr. Carl Zimmerman and scientific program committee chair Dr. Oz Harmanli. The rest of the morning session was filled with outstanding oral and video presentations on topics ranging from the role of oophorectomy in patients with breast cancer, creating simulation models to enhance medical education, and tips for navigating the altered retroperitoneum.

Next, the Mark D. Walters endowed lecture was given by Dr. Marta A. Crispens, entitled “Restructuring Gynecologic Surgical Education: It’s a Matter of Equity.” In her exceptionally powerful address, Dr. Crispens began by discussing the historical context in which the fields of obstetrics and gynecology were combined and comparing it to a shift in current practice toward a national decrease in number of hysterectomies and an increase in the complexity of surgical cases. She highlighted the well-studied fact that low-volume surgeons have higher complication rates and that many new ObGyn residency graduates perform only 3 to 4 hysterectomies annually during the first few years of practice. Finally, she asserted that, by separating the practices of obstetrics and gynecology, we can improve surgical education and the quality of surgical care for our patients. The audience’s enthusiasm was undeniable, resulting in resounding applause and a standing ovation.

The afternoon was filled with unique opportunities for fellows, including: the Fellow’s Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) meeting, an incredibly informative panel on how to navigate the first year out of fellowship with Dr. Mireille Truong, Dr. Christine Foley, and Dr. Jon Pennycuff, and finally, the Mentorship Mingle.

The first day was concluded with the President’s Award Ceremony in which Dr. John DeLancey was presented with the illustrious President’s Award, followed by the President’s Reception with food, drinks, and lively conversation. Looking forward to day 2 of #SGS2022. @gynsurgery

Wednesday, March 30. Day 3 of SGS.

The final day of #SGS2022 began with the last round of oral and video presentations on topics including: the efficacy and safety of restrictive blood transfusion protocols in gynecologic surgical patients, restricted opioid use following midurethral sling procedures, and the efficacy of trigger point injections for myofascial pelvic pain. Next, the prestigious Distinguished Surgeon Award was presented to Dr. Jeffrey Cornella, professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, for his contributions to the field of gynecologic surgery.

This was followed by the passing of the presidential gavel from current SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman to incoming president Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, Director of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC, and Director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery (NCAPS) at Medstar Health. Dr. Iglesia has been internationally and nationally recognized for her work in advancing the field of pelvic surgery and urogynecology through extensive research, clinical excellence, and support of medical education.

Needless to say, #SGS2022 was a huge success! While many of us are sad to leave San Antonio today, we are returning to our respective programs feeling motivated and rejuvenated. There is nothing more inspiring than spending time with such a highly committed group of physicians who strive to improve patient care through their excellent contributions to research and medical education. I am grateful for the new mentors, colleagues, and friends I have met at this meeting.

Thank you to the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and OBG Management for giving me the opportunity to reflect on my experience at #SGS2022, as well as the companies that support the Fellows Scholar program.

I can’t wait to attend the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting in Tuscon, Arizona, in 2023!

Tuesday, March 29, 2022. Day 2 of SGS.

The second day of #SGS2022 began with several academic roundtables on a variety of topics including hysteroscopy, uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries, how to select patients for vaginal hysterectomy, and the role of minimally invasive surgery in transabdominal cerclage. The general session continued with more outstanding poster and video presentations that were followed by the annual presidential address. SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman spoke about the changing surgical landscape and SGS’s commitment to improving surgical education: “The women of America and the world deserve better.” He went on to announce the creation of a presidential task force on surgical training, whose members will include: Dr. Ted Anderson, Dr. Emily Weber LeBrun, and Dr. Mike Moen.

This year’s TeLinde Lecture was given by the executive director of the American College of Surgeons, Dr. Dr. Patricia Turner. Her talk was entitled, “Surgeons: More to Unite Us Than Divide Us.” Dr. Turner began by reminding us of the shared history between general surgery and gynecologic surgery. In fact, the American College of Surgeons was founded by gynecologist Dr. Franklin H. Martin. She went on to thoughtfully discuss the need to rethink surgical training and the way we assess surgical trainees. She highlighted the importance of collaboration between all surgical specialties to improve surgical education, improve outcomes, and advocate for patients. “In order to heal all, we have to have ALL surgeons at the table.”

Today’s general session was concluded with a panel discussion on “Operating Room Safety and Efficiency” in which Dr. Kenneth Catchpole, Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, and Dr. Jason Wright shared some interesting ideas on how we can improve patient care in the operating room. The afternoon continued with a number of social activities, providing an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful landscape of San Antonio, Texas, including: a tour of Eisenhower park, kayaking on the Guadelupe River, and the SGS golf tournament.

The fun continued into the evening at the annual “SGS’ Got Talent” in which participants could be spotted in cowboy hats, bandanas, and boots. The night was filled with food, drinks, laughter, and line dancing! #SGS2022

 

Monday, March 28, 2022. Day 1 of SGS.

“How do you become brave? How do you become an advocate? How do you make a change?” These are just some of the questions asked during our thought-provoking early morning session entitled, “Healthcare Inequity Awareness—A Conversation to Empower Providers and Enhance the Patient Experience” at this year’s annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons #SGS2022. The panelists, which included Dr. Olivia Cardenas-Trowers, Dr. Maria Florian-Rodriguez, and Dr. Tristi Muir, emphasized the importance of acknowledging our own bias as physicians, as well as the role structural racism plays in the health care access and outcomes of our patients. We were reminded that “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (aka DEI) is a journey. It is progress over time, not over night.”

Following the early morning panel, the 48th annual scientific meeting officially began with a brief welcome and recognition of new SGS members by current president Dr. Carl Zimmerman and scientific program committee chair Dr. Oz Harmanli. The rest of the morning session was filled with outstanding oral and video presentations on topics ranging from the role of oophorectomy in patients with breast cancer, creating simulation models to enhance medical education, and tips for navigating the altered retroperitoneum.

Next, the Mark D. Walters endowed lecture was given by Dr. Marta A. Crispens, entitled “Restructuring Gynecologic Surgical Education: It’s a Matter of Equity.” In her exceptionally powerful address, Dr. Crispens began by discussing the historical context in which the fields of obstetrics and gynecology were combined and comparing it to a shift in current practice toward a national decrease in number of hysterectomies and an increase in the complexity of surgical cases. She highlighted the well-studied fact that low-volume surgeons have higher complication rates and that many new ObGyn residency graduates perform only 3 to 4 hysterectomies annually during the first few years of practice. Finally, she asserted that, by separating the practices of obstetrics and gynecology, we can improve surgical education and the quality of surgical care for our patients. The audience’s enthusiasm was undeniable, resulting in resounding applause and a standing ovation.

The afternoon was filled with unique opportunities for fellows, including: the Fellow’s Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) meeting, an incredibly informative panel on how to navigate the first year out of fellowship with Dr. Mireille Truong, Dr. Christine Foley, and Dr. Jon Pennycuff, and finally, the Mentorship Mingle.

The first day was concluded with the President’s Award Ceremony in which Dr. John DeLancey was presented with the illustrious President’s Award, followed by the President’s Reception with food, drinks, and lively conversation. Looking forward to day 2 of #SGS2022. @gynsurgery

Wednesday, March 30. Day 3 of SGS.

The final day of #SGS2022 began with the last round of oral and video presentations on topics including: the efficacy and safety of restrictive blood transfusion protocols in gynecologic surgical patients, restricted opioid use following midurethral sling procedures, and the efficacy of trigger point injections for myofascial pelvic pain. Next, the prestigious Distinguished Surgeon Award was presented to Dr. Jeffrey Cornella, professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, for his contributions to the field of gynecologic surgery.

This was followed by the passing of the presidential gavel from current SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman to incoming president Dr. Cheryl Iglesia, Director of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC, and Director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery (NCAPS) at Medstar Health. Dr. Iglesia has been internationally and nationally recognized for her work in advancing the field of pelvic surgery and urogynecology through extensive research, clinical excellence, and support of medical education.

Needless to say, #SGS2022 was a huge success! While many of us are sad to leave San Antonio today, we are returning to our respective programs feeling motivated and rejuvenated. There is nothing more inspiring than spending time with such a highly committed group of physicians who strive to improve patient care through their excellent contributions to research and medical education. I am grateful for the new mentors, colleagues, and friends I have met at this meeting.

Thank you to the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and OBG Management for giving me the opportunity to reflect on my experience at #SGS2022, as well as the companies that support the Fellows Scholar program.

I can’t wait to attend the 49th Annual Scientific Meeting in Tuscon, Arizona, in 2023!

Tuesday, March 29, 2022. Day 2 of SGS.

The second day of #SGS2022 began with several academic roundtables on a variety of topics including hysteroscopy, uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries, how to select patients for vaginal hysterectomy, and the role of minimally invasive surgery in transabdominal cerclage. The general session continued with more outstanding poster and video presentations that were followed by the annual presidential address. SGS president Dr. Carl Zimmerman spoke about the changing surgical landscape and SGS’s commitment to improving surgical education: “The women of America and the world deserve better.” He went on to announce the creation of a presidential task force on surgical training, whose members will include: Dr. Ted Anderson, Dr. Emily Weber LeBrun, and Dr. Mike Moen.

This year’s TeLinde Lecture was given by the executive director of the American College of Surgeons, Dr. Dr. Patricia Turner. Her talk was entitled, “Surgeons: More to Unite Us Than Divide Us.” Dr. Turner began by reminding us of the shared history between general surgery and gynecologic surgery. In fact, the American College of Surgeons was founded by gynecologist Dr. Franklin H. Martin. She went on to thoughtfully discuss the need to rethink surgical training and the way we assess surgical trainees. She highlighted the importance of collaboration between all surgical specialties to improve surgical education, improve outcomes, and advocate for patients. “In order to heal all, we have to have ALL surgeons at the table.”

Today’s general session was concluded with a panel discussion on “Operating Room Safety and Efficiency” in which Dr. Kenneth Catchpole, Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, and Dr. Jason Wright shared some interesting ideas on how we can improve patient care in the operating room. The afternoon continued with a number of social activities, providing an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful landscape of San Antonio, Texas, including: a tour of Eisenhower park, kayaking on the Guadelupe River, and the SGS golf tournament.

The fun continued into the evening at the annual “SGS’ Got Talent” in which participants could be spotted in cowboy hats, bandanas, and boots. The night was filled with food, drinks, laughter, and line dancing! #SGS2022

 

Monday, March 28, 2022. Day 1 of SGS.

“How do you become brave? How do you become an advocate? How do you make a change?” These are just some of the questions asked during our thought-provoking early morning session entitled, “Healthcare Inequity Awareness—A Conversation to Empower Providers and Enhance the Patient Experience” at this year’s annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons #SGS2022. The panelists, which included Dr. Olivia Cardenas-Trowers, Dr. Maria Florian-Rodriguez, and Dr. Tristi Muir, emphasized the importance of acknowledging our own bias as physicians, as well as the role structural racism plays in the health care access and outcomes of our patients. We were reminded that “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (aka DEI) is a journey. It is progress over time, not over night.”

Following the early morning panel, the 48th annual scientific meeting officially began with a brief welcome and recognition of new SGS members by current president Dr. Carl Zimmerman and scientific program committee chair Dr. Oz Harmanli. The rest of the morning session was filled with outstanding oral and video presentations on topics ranging from the role of oophorectomy in patients with breast cancer, creating simulation models to enhance medical education, and tips for navigating the altered retroperitoneum.

Next, the Mark D. Walters endowed lecture was given by Dr. Marta A. Crispens, entitled “Restructuring Gynecologic Surgical Education: It’s a Matter of Equity.” In her exceptionally powerful address, Dr. Crispens began by discussing the historical context in which the fields of obstetrics and gynecology were combined and comparing it to a shift in current practice toward a national decrease in number of hysterectomies and an increase in the complexity of surgical cases. She highlighted the well-studied fact that low-volume surgeons have higher complication rates and that many new ObGyn residency graduates perform only 3 to 4 hysterectomies annually during the first few years of practice. Finally, she asserted that, by separating the practices of obstetrics and gynecology, we can improve surgical education and the quality of surgical care for our patients. The audience’s enthusiasm was undeniable, resulting in resounding applause and a standing ovation.

The afternoon was filled with unique opportunities for fellows, including: the Fellow’s Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) meeting, an incredibly informative panel on how to navigate the first year out of fellowship with Dr. Mireille Truong, Dr. Christine Foley, and Dr. Jon Pennycuff, and finally, the Mentorship Mingle.

The first day was concluded with the President’s Award Ceremony in which Dr. John DeLancey was presented with the illustrious President’s Award, followed by the President’s Reception with food, drinks, and lively conversation. Looking forward to day 2 of #SGS2022. @gynsurgery

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Despite the original intent of permanent contraception, tubal sterilization regret is experienced by 2%-26% of women as demonstrated by the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization “CREST” 14-year study (Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93[6]:889-95). Regret appears to be higher in the United States than Europe and in resource-limited countries and is more common in women who are less than age 30, African-American, and unmarried. Nevertheless, requests for tubal reversal are estimated to be between 1% and 4% (Contraception. 1981 Jun;23[6]:579-89). The alternative option for fertility is in vitro fertilization (IVF) and this month’s column considers the pros and cons of both methods.

The procedure of tubal reanastomosis involves removing abnormal tissue and reapproximating the healthy tubal segments with attention to minimize adhesion formation through continued gentle irrigation. The surgery involves microsuturing using 6-0 to 10-0 sutures. Tubal patency can be confirmed during the procedure and with a subsequent hysterosalpingogram. While time from sterilization and the type of sterilization technique are factors that may influence the success rate of tubal reanastomosis, the age of the woman is the most predictive for pregnancy outcome.

In the original CREST study, the risk of ectopic pregnancy following tubal reanastomosis was contingent on the method of sterilization: Bipolar electrosurgery resulted in the highest probability of ectopic pregnancy (17.1 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception), while postpartum partial salpingectomy resulted in the lowest (1.5 per 1,000 procedures at 10 years after permanent contraception) (N Engl J Med. 1997;336[11]:762). Comparatively, the ectopic pregnancy rate during an IVF cycle was 1.9% for pregnancies from transfers of fresh cleavage embryo, followed by transfers of frozen cleavage embryo (1.7%), transfers of fresh blastocyst (1.3%), and transfers of frozen blastocyst (0.8%) (Hum Reprod. 2015;30[9]:2048-54).

Reports vary regarding pregnancy rates from tubal reanastomosis. Prior use of rings and clips for sterilization appear to yield the highest outcomes as opposed to the use of electrocautery. In one large Canadian cohort study of over 300,000 women, those aged 15-30 years, 30-33 years, and 34-49 years had a conception rate of 73%, 64%, and 46%, respectively (Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101[4]:677-84). Most pregnancies were within 2 years after reversal and 48% of women achieved a delivery. Of interest, 23% of patients subsequently underwent another sterilization.

An Australian study of nearly 2,000 women found an overall cumulative live-delivery rate of 20% within the first year after reversal, 40% at 2 years, 51% at 5 years, and 52% at 10 years. As expected, the 5-year cumulative live-delivery rate was significantly lower in women who were aged 40-44 years (26%), compared with younger women. For all women below age 40 years, the live-delivery rate was approximately 50% within 5 years after tubal reanastomosis, while the rate halves after the age of 40 (Fertil Steril. 2015 Oct;104[4]:921-6).

To compare tubal reanastomosis with IVF, a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients demonstrated the cumulative delivery rate over 72 months was comparable for IVF vs. sterilization reversal (52% vs. 60%). The only significant difference was in a subset of patients aged <37 years (52% after IVF and 72% after reversal) and the lower cost of surgery. The authors advocated laparoscopic sterilization reversal in women younger than 37 years who have ≥4 cm of residual tube with IVF as the better alternative for all other women (Hum Reprod. 2007;22[10]:2660).

Indeed, tubal length is another important factor in successful reversal. The pregnancy rate after tubal anastomosis is 75% in women with tubal length of 4 cm or more, but only 19% in those with shorter tubes (Fertil Steril. 1987;48[1]:13-7). The literature does suggest equivalent pregnancy rates after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis and conventional microsurgical anastomosis. Although the laparoscopic approach may be more economical, it is more demanding technically than an open microsurgical procedure.

Tubal reanastomosis can also be performed using robot-assisted laparoscopy. In preliminary studies, robotic surgery appears to have a similar success rate and a shorter recovery time, but longer operative times and higher costs (Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109[6]:1375; Fertil Steril. 2008;90[4]:1175).

To educate women on the success of IVF based on individual characteristics, a valuable tool to approximate the cumulative outcome for a live birth following one cycle of IVF is offered by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. To clarify, a cycle of IVF consists of one egg retrieval and the ultimate transfer of all embryos produced, i.e., fresh and frozen. The website also includes estimations of success following a second and third IVF cycle.

The woman’s age is a significant predictor of IVF success. Ovarian aging is currently best measured by combining chronologic age, antral follicle count (AFC) by transvaginal pelvic ultrasound, and serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Natural fecundity begins to decline, on average, above age 32-33 years. An AFC less than 11 reflects diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and less than 6 is severe. AMH levels below 1.6 ng/mL have been shown to reduce the number of eggs retrieved with IVF, while levels below 0.4 ng/mL are very low. Very low AMH levels negatively affect the outcome of IVF cycles as demonstrated in the SART data study from a population of women with a mean age of 39.4 years: Cycle cancellation was 54%; of all retrieval attempts, no oocytes were obtained in 5.4%, and no embryo transfer occurred in 25.1% of cycles; the live birth rate per embryo transfer was 20.5% (9.5% per cycle start and 16.3% per retrieval) from a mean age of 36.8 years (Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb;105[2]:385-93.e3). The predictive ability of AMH on the live birth rate from IVF cycles was also shown in a study of over 85,000 women (Fertil Steril. 2018;109:258-65).

While low AMH has been shown to lessen a successful outcome from IVF, there appears to be no difference in natural pregnancy rates in women aged 30-44 years irrespective of AMH levels (JAMA. 2017;318[14]:1367-76). Of importance, the use of AMH in a population at low risk for DOR will yield a larger number of false-positive results (i.e., characterizing a woman as DOR when in fact she has normal ovarian reserve). Further, users of hormonal contraceptives have a 25.2% lower mean AMH level than nonusers.

When a patient is considering tubal reanastomosis vs. IVF, a useful acronym to remember is to check “AGE” – the A is for AMH because severely diminished ovarian reserve will reduce success with IVF as shown by the SART calculator; the G represents guy, i.e., ensuring a reasonably normal sperm analysis; and E stands for eggs representing ovulation function. In a woman who is anovulatory and who will require fertility medication, it would be reasonable to consider IVF given the need for ovarian stimulation. As in females, advanced paternal age has demonstrated a decline in fertility and sperm analysis parameters. Men above age 45 take approximately five times as long to achieve a pregnancy, compared with men less than 25 years of age. Further, there is evidence for advanced paternal age increasing risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and birth defects. Men older than 40-45 years have twice the risk of an autistic child and five times the risk of having a child with schizophrenia (Transl Psychiatry 2017;7: e1019; Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1528-33).

To conclude, the data support consideration for sterilization reversal in women less than age 37 years with more than 4 cm of residual functional fallopian tube and the prior use of rings or clip sterilization. In other women, IVF may be the better option, particularly when ovulation dysfunction and/or male factor is present. IVF also offers the advantage of maintaining contraception and gender determination. However, given that AMH does not appear to reduce natural fertility, unlike during its effect during an IVF cycle, the option of tubal reversal may be more favorable in women with severe DOR.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.

Complete gross resection is much less likely for advanced ovarian cancer in women with mesenchymal tumors and complex preoperative CT findings, according to a report at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting.

Investigators found that women with those features, compared with those without them, are 10 times more likely to have a high-complexity surgery and almost 27 times more likely to have something other than a complete (RD0) resection.

The findings speak to a common dilemma in advanced ovarian cancer, whether women should have surgery or chemotherapy first. Part of the decision hinges on the likelihood of surgical success, explained lead investigator Diogo Torres, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans.

He and his team concluded that “preoperative CT imaging combined with tumor molecular subtyping can identify a subset of women for whom successful primary surgery is unlikely. Preoperative tumor sampling may be useful in advanced [ovarian cancer] to better triage these cases to alternative approaches.”

For years “we’ve been trying to figure out” how best to make the call between primary debulking and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, said Pamela T. Soliman, MD, MPH,a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who discussed the abstract at the meeting.

Imaging alone or CA-125 are often used to make the decision, but they’re unreliable. Diagnostic laparoscopy is accurate, but it isn’t used much, she said.

What’s unique about Dr. Torres’s approach is that, by including tumor subtype, it incorporates tumor biology. It makes sense because his team previously found that women with mesenchymal (MES) tumors are more likely than those with other subtypes to have upper abdominal and miliary disease.

The approach needs validation in a larger study, but “I really commend” the team “for incorporating biology into the decision-making because it is clearly a step in the right direction,” Dr. Soliman said.

The study included 129 women who underwent primary debulking surgery for stage 3c or 4 high-grade serous ovarian cancer; 46x women (36%) had MES tumors according to RNA profiling of surgical specimens.

Preoperative CTs were reviewed to assess diaphragmatic disease; gastrohepatic/portahepatis lesions; root of superior mesenteric artery involvement; presence of moderate to severe ascites; intrahepatic lesions, and diffuse peritoneal thickening greater than 4 mm.

Fifty-nine women (46%) were classified as “CT high,” meaning that they had two or more of those findings. Women with no more than one were categorized as “CT low.”

Patients with MES tumors and CT-high disease had the lowest rates of complete resections, 8% versus 46% for the entire cohort and 72% for non-MES, CT-low women. MES, CT-high women were also the most likely to have high-complexity surgery (81% versus 35% in the non-MES, CT-low group).

Adjusting for age, stage, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score, the odds of high-complexity surgery were 9.53 times higher and the odds of something less than a complete resection were 26.73 times greater in MES, CT-high patients, compared with non-MES, CT-low women.

“Further studies are needed to evaluate and validate this model using preoperative biopsy specimens” instead of surgical specimens, the investigators said.

No funding was reported for the work. Dr. Torres didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Soliman is an adviser for Eisai and Amgen, a consultant for Medscape, and receives research funding from Novartis and Incyte.