Barking up the Wrong Hepatobiliary Tree: A Case of Elevated CA19-9

Introduction: Incidental elevations in Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) can trigger extensive medical evaluations for malignancy. Though classically associated with pancreatic cancer, CA19-9 is a nonspecific manifestation of multiple benign and malignant disease processes. Case Description/Methods: An asymptomatic, healthy 50-year-old female presented to primary care for an elevated CA19-9 level obtained for pancreatic cancer screening in Asia in 2019. Her evaluation in 2019 included abdominopelvic CT and magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which were normal. She was offered endoscopic ultrasonography to further evaluate pancreaticobiliary etiologies but was lost to follow-up amid the COVID-19 pandemic. She returned to the US in 2021, and basic laboratory testing and routine cervical cancer screening were performed. She was referred to Gastroenterology (GI) for further evaluation. Cervical cytology revealed atypical endometrial cells, and endometrial biopsy by gynecology was concerning for gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma. Transvaginal ultrasound revealed a thickened endometrial stripe, and pan CT revealed duodenal thickening, for which GI performed bidirectional endoscopy without significant abnormalities and no pancreatic or metastatic disease. Repeat CA19- 9 increased. She was referred to gynecologic oncology, where cervical biopsy and pelvic MRI confirmed an endocervical mass. She was diagnosed with Stage IIB gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma and underwent hysterectomy and left salpingectomy with adjuvant chemoradiation. Discussion(s): CA19-9 is synthesized in multiple organ systems. Elevations in asymptomatic patients are rarely predictive of pancreatic cancer but may expose patients to unnecessary testing and inadvertent harms without identifying malignancy. Thus, CA19-9 is not recommended for pancreatic cancer screening. Incidental elevations do warrant repeat testing. Benign processes will yield stable or decreasing levels, while rising levels suggest progressive or malignant processes. If concern for pancreatic malignancy is low, a reasonable investigation includes chest X-ray or CT, metabolic studies, hemoglobin A1c, liver and thyroid function panels, abdominopelvic CT or gynecologic cancer evaluation, and any other age-indicated cancer screening. In this case, prior imaging studies suggested low concern for pancreatic cancer. Her subsequent evaluation aligned with this suggested work-up and revealed gynecologic cancer as the ultimate etiology for her elevated CA19-9.

Hysterectomies for endometrial hyperplasia decreased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: where have all the patients gone?

Objectives: To determine change in number of hysterectomies (hyst) and levonorgestrel intrauterine device (IUD) placements as treatment for endometrial hyperplasia (EH), and in the number of diagnostic procedures for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) performed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels. Method(s): Hospitals submitting data to the Vizient database for the period 2/1/19 through 2/1/21 provided the study population. We queried Vizient to identify patients undergoing (1) hyst, (2) IUD placement for EH, and (3) endometrial biopsy (EMB) or dilation and curettage (D&C) for AUB or PMB by month (mo.). We defined the pre-pandemic period as 2/1/19 through 1/31/20;2/1/20 began the pandemic period. Mean number/mo of EH hyst, EH IUD placement, and EMB or D&C for AUB or PMB for the pre-pandemic period established a baseline for comparison to mos during the first pandemic year. Result(s): 314 hospitals reported data on 2,374 EH hysts, 2,006 EH IUD placements, and 99,782 diagnostic procedures for AUB and PMB. The mean number of EH hysts was 118/mo pre-pandemic and 79.9/mo during the pandemic;the mean difference was 38.2/mo (95%CI 23.2- 53.1, p=0.00015). Mean EH IUD placements pre-pandemic were 87.6/ mo, and 79.6/mo during the pandemic;mean difference was 8/mo (95%CI -11-27, p=0.37). The mean number of combined EMBs and D&Cs pre-pandemic was 4,547/mo and 3,768/mo during the pandemic;mean difference was 778/mo (95%CI 80-1477, p=0.032).[Formula presented] Conclusion(s): During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of EH hysts performed per mo decreased. We found no increase in EH IUD placement. Although Vizient does not report the number of patients prescribed oral progesterone as an alternative treatment, we found that the total number of patients undergoing diagnostic procedures for AUB and PMB decreased significantly during the pandemic period, suggesting that the deficit in hysts performed for EH is due, in part, to fewer patients presenting for workup of abnormal bleeding. Together with our earlier report that 20% fewer hysts for EC were done during the first pandemic year, our findings suggest a meaningful delay in care. More research is needed to determine if this delay will impact stage, treatment and outcome. Data for the 2nd pandemic year will be analyzed in time for the meeting.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

TIMELY FOLLOW-UP OF ABNORMAL CANCER SCREENING TEST RESULTS IN TWO LARGE PRIMARY CARE PRACTICE NETWORKS

BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results (“abnormal screens”) is critical but often not achieved. As part of an NCI funded intervention trial (mFOCUS: multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495), we report on abnormal screens that were identified and tracked to identify eligible patients overdue for study inclusion. While not anticipated when this study was conceived, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a larger than anticipated backlog of patients in need of follow-up of abnormal screens. METHODS: Patients in two primary care practice networks affiliated with Mass General Brigham who had an abnormal screen for breast, cervical or lung cancer were identified using computerized algorithms and then tracked for completion of appropriate follow-up based upon the cancer type and the severity of the abnormal result. Since the intervention was designed as a “fail safe” system, additional time (2-6 months depending on the severity of the abnormal screen) was added after the recommended follow-up interval. We report the number of abnormal screens by cancer type and severity of the abnormality and the number of patients who completed follow-up based upon guideline and expert recommendations. RESULTS: Patient tracking and enrollment started with abnormal screens for breast and lung on 8/24/2020 and cervical cancer on 10/16/2020. Enrollment ended for all abnormal screens on December 15, 2021. Over the study period, 4003 abnormal breast, 5214 abnormal cervical, and 478 abnormal lung screens were identified. High risk abnormalities were most common for cervical (51.7%, recommended colposcopy or endometrial biopsy), lung (22.6%, LRADS 4B, 4X or 5), and lowest for breast (0.4%, BIRADS 5). Rates of completing recommended follow-up of abnormal screens by cancer type and severity of the result are shown in the table. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing the benefits of cancer screening requires the timely follow-up of abnormal screening results. Though likely exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified that timely completion of abnormal screens is often not achieved. Rates of completion varied by cancer type and the severity of the abnormal result but highlight the need for systems based, multi-level interventions to identify, report and track abnormal results.

Surgical Management of abnormal uterine bleeding with endometrial sampling during COVID-19

Objectives: To investigate the delay in surgical management of abnormal uterine bleeding with endometrial sampling during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic at a single, urban tertiary medical center. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 868 patients, 466 who received an endometrial biopsy in 2019 and 402 between January 1–March 23, 2020 (during the first peak of COVID-19) at a tertiary academic medical center in Philadelphia. We collected baseline patient characteristics including: age, self-identified race or ethnicity, and BMI. We assessed the time from an abnormal endometrial biopsy to surgical management, use of at least one telemedicine appointment between biopsy and surgical management, and resulting pathology results. Chi-squared test was used to compare proportions of populations and two-tailed student's T-test was used to compare days between biopsy and surgical management. P-value was set at 0.05. Results: 466 and 402 patients underwent an endometrial biopsy in 2019 and between January 1 – March 23, 2020, respectively. In 2019, 4.94% were diagnosed with an endometrial malignancy and 95.1% had resulting benign pathology;while in 2020, 5.22% had a diagnosed endometrial malignancy and 94.8% had benign pathology (p-value = 0.84). Median age was 51.0 years (range, 19.0–89.0) in 2019 and 51.0 years (range 24–89) in 2020. Median BMI was 31.4 (range, 17.6–66.9) in 2019 and 31.1 (range, 16.3–74.2) in 2020. Median time between endometrial biopsy and surgical management was 66.5 days (range, 0–453 days) in 2019 and 94.0 days (range 13.0–335) in 2020 (p-value = 0.57). Median time from biopsy to surgery for patients with a resulting pathology of endometrial malignancy was 53 days (range, 0–441) in 2019 and 87.5 days (range 13.0–323) in 2020 (p-value = 0.50). Median time for patients with resulting benign pathology was 69.0 days (range, 9.00–453) in 2019 and 112 days (range, 33.0–335) in 2020 (p-value = 0.48). 57.4% of patients in 2020 had at least one telemedicine appointment with their physician between the initial encounter for abnormal uterine bleeding and surgical treatment, while no patients had a telemedicine appointment in 2019. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, individual patients with abnormal uterine bleeding may have experienced delays between initial abnormal endometrial biopsy and surgical management. However, comparing the populations as a whole, there was not a statistical difference in time between biopsy and surgical management for abnormal uterine bleeding, reinforcing the quality of care given to our patients. However, further studies are needed to examine the effects of COVID-19 on possible delay in surgical treatment from first symptoms in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding to biopsy and to surgical management.