1
|
Mills KA, Joshi TV, West L, Kuznicki M, Kent L, Hokenstad AN, Cripe JC, Woolfolk C, Senter L, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Wenham RM, Cohn DE, Bae-Jump V, Thaker PH. Is hormonal therapy after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy associated with an increased risk of malignancy in pathogenic variant carriers? Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157:706-710. [PMID: 32143914 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Revised: 02/22/2020] [Accepted: 02/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to assess the association between hormone replacement therapy and the incidence of subsequent malignancies in patients who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and had mutations predisposing them to Müllerian cancers. METHODS This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was performed at five academic institutions. Women were included if they were age 18-51 years, had one or more confirmed germline highly penetrant pathogenic variants, and underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Patients with a prior malignancy were excluded. Clinicodemographic data were collected by chart review. Patients with no documented contact for one year prior to study termination were called to confirm duration of hormone use and occurrence of secondary outcomes. Hormone replacement therapy included any combination of estrogen or progesterone. RESULTS Data were analyzed for 159 women, of which 82 received hormone replacement therapy and 77 did not. In both groups an average of 6 years since risk reduction had passed. The patients treated with hormone replacement therapy did not have a higher risk of subsequent malignancy than those not treated with hormone replacement therapy (6 out of 82 vs. 7 out of 77, P = .68). Patients who received hormone replacement therapy were younger than those who did not receive hormone replacement therapy (39.0 vs. 43.9 years, P < .01) and were more likely to have undergone other risk reductive procedures including mastectomy and/or hysterectomy, though this difference was not statistically significant (69.5% vs. 55.8%, P = .07). CONCLUSIONS In this multi-institution retrospective study of data from patients with high-risk variant carriers who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of malignancy between women who did and did not receive hormone replacement therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn A Mills
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
| | - Tanvi V Joshi
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America
| | - Lindsay West
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Michelle Kuznicki
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States of America
| | - Laura Kent
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States of America
| | - Alexis N Hokenstad
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - James C Cripe
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Candice Woolfolk
- Division of Oncologic Biostatistics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Leigha Senter
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America
| | - Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America
| | - Robert M Wenham
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States of America
| | - David E Cohn
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America
| | - Victoria Bae-Jump
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Matsuo K, Cripe JC, Kurnit KC, Kaneda M, Garneau AS, Glaser GE, Nizam A, Schillinger RM, Kuznicki ML, Yabuno A, Yanai S, Garofalo DM, Suzuki J, St Laurent JD, Yen TT, Liu AY, Shida M, Kakuda M, Oishi T, Nishio S, Marcus JZ, Adachi S, Kurokawa T, Ross MS, Horowitz MP, Johnson MS, Kim MK, Melamed A, Machado KK, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Enomoto T, Ushijima K, Satoh S, Ueda Y, Mikami M, Rimel BJ, Stone RL, Growdon WB, Okamoto A, Guntupalli SR, Hasegawa K, Shahzad MMK, Im DD, Frimer M, Gostout BS, Ueland FR, Nagao S, Soliman PT, Thaker PH, Wright JD, Roman LD. Recurrence, death, and secondary malignancy after ovarian conservation for young women with early-stage low-grade endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 155:39-50. [PMID: 31427143 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.08.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2019] [Revised: 07/29/2019] [Accepted: 08/03/2019] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between ovarian conservation and oncologic outcome in surgically-treated young women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS This multicenter retrospective study examined women aged <50 with stage I grade 1-2 endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary surgery with hysterectomy from 2000 to 2014 (US cohort n = 1196, and Japan cohort n = 495). Recurrence patterns, survival, and the presence of a metachronous secondary malignancy were assessed based on ovarian conservation versus oophorectomy. RESULTS During the study period, the ovarian conservation rate significantly increased in the US cohort from 5.4% to 16.4% (P = 0.020) whereas the rate was unchanged in the Japan cohort (6.3-8.7%, P = 0.787). In the US cohort, ovarian conservation was not associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.829, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.188-3.663, P = 0.805), overall survival (HR not estimated, P = 0.981), or metachronous secondary malignancy (HR 1.787, 95% CI 0.603-5.295, P = 0.295). In the Japan cohort, ovarian conservation was associated with decreased disease-free survival (HR 5.214, 95% CI 1.557-17.464, P = 0.007) and an increased risk of a metachronous secondary malignancy, particularly ovarian cancer (HR 7.119, 95% CI 1.349-37.554, P = 0.021), but was not associated with overall survival (HR not estimated, P = 0.987). Ovarian recurrence or metachronous secondary ovarian cancer occurred after a median time of 5.9 years, and all cases were salvaged. CONCLUSION Our study suggests that adoption of ovarian conservation in young women with early-stage low-grade endometrial cancer varies by population. Ovarian conservation for young women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer may be potentially associated with increased risks of ovarian recurrence or metachronous secondary ovarian cancer in certain populations; nevertheless, ovarian conservation did not negatively impact overall survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koji Matsuo
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| | - James C Cripe
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Katherine C Kurnit
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD-Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Michiko Kaneda
- Department of Gynecology, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Audrey S Garneau
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Gretchen E Glaser
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Aaron Nizam
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Long Island, NY, USA
| | | | - Michelle L Kuznicki
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, FL, USA
| | - Akira Yabuno
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Shiori Yanai
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, Okayama, Japan
| | - Denise M Garofalo
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Jiro Suzuki
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Jessica D St Laurent
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ting-Tai Yen
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Annie Y Liu
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Masako Shida
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Mamoru Kakuda
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Tetsuro Oishi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tottori University School of Medicine, Tottori, Japan
| | - Shin Nishio
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Jenna Z Marcus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
| | - Sosuke Adachi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University School of Medicine, Niigata, Japan
| | - Tetsuji Kurokawa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui School of Medicine, Fukui, Japan
| | - Malcolm S Ross
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Max P Horowitz
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Marian S Johnson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Min K Kim
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Alexander Melamed
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Karime K Machado
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kosuke Yoshihara
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University School of Medicine, Niigata, Japan
| | - Yoshio Yoshida
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Fukui School of Medicine, Fukui, Japan
| | - Takayuki Enomoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University School of Medicine, Niigata, Japan
| | - Kimio Ushijima
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Shinya Satoh
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tottori University School of Medicine, Tottori, Japan
| | - Yutaka Ueda
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Mikio Mikami
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Bobbie J Rimel
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Rebecca L Stone
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Whitfield B Growdon
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aikou Okamoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Saketh R Guntupalli
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA
| | - Kosei Hasegawa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Mian M K Shahzad
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, FL, USA
| | - Dwight D Im
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Marina Frimer
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Long Island, NY, USA
| | - Bobbie S Gostout
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Frederick R Ueland
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Shoji Nagao
- Department of Gynecology, Hyogo Cancer Center, Hyogo, Japan
| | - Pamela T Soliman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD-Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Jason D Wright
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lynda D Roman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mills KA, Lopez H, Sun L, Cripe JC, Litz T, Thaker PH, Powell MA, Mutch DG, Fuh KC. Type II endometrial cancers with minimal, non-invasive residual disease on final pathology: What should we do next? Gynecol Oncol Rep 2019; 29:20-24. [PMID: 31193699 PMCID: PMC6541758 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2019.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2019] [Revised: 05/13/2019] [Accepted: 05/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
There are minimal data regarding the management of high risk endometrial cancer histologies lacking invasive disease on the final pathology specimen. This study examines a cohort of these patients and assesses outcomes including time to recurrence and risk of death after management with and without adjuvant therapies. Endometrial cancer patients with minimal or no remaining invasive disease on final pathologic specimen from 1995 to 2010 were included. Surgical procedure was at the discretion of the operating physician. Electronic medical records were used to abstract relevant clinicopathologic data and standard statistical methods were employed. 70 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 26 were high grade histologies. Adjuvant therapies were given in 12 of 26 patients. 6/26 patients recurred, of which 50% were salvaged with therapy at time of recurrence. Overall deaths occurred in 3 of 26 patients in the high risk cohort. Less than half of the high risk cohort received adjuvant therapies after surgical management. No histologic type was found to increase risk of recurrence, and treatment with initial adjuvant therapy did not significantly reduce recurrence risk. Large scale prospective trials are needed to aid in management of this unique endometrial cancer population. This series describes a cohort of high risk with minimal remaining disease on final pathology specimen. Patients with clear cell histology who went on to recur did so quickly and were salvageable. Treatment with adjuvant therapy after primary surgery did not significantly improve risk of recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn A Mills
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Heather Lopez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Lulu Sun
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - James C Cripe
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Taylor Litz
- Division of Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Matthew A Powell
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - David G Mutch
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| | - Katherine C Fuh
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cripe JC, Buchanan TR, Kuroki LM, Wan L, Mills KA, Massad L, Hagemann AR, Fuh KC, Mutch DG, Powell MA, Matsuo K, Thaker PH. Association between body mass index and surgical menopausal symptoms in patients with early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 153:123-126. [PMID: 30651188 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2018] [Revised: 01/02/2019] [Accepted: 01/07/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Premenopausal women may undergo surgical menopause after staging for their endometrial cancer. Our aim was to determine the association between body mass index (BMI) and surgical menopausal symptoms. METHODS We report a retrospective review of endometrial cancer patients whom underwent menopause secondary to their surgical staging procedure. Symptoms were classified as severe if treatment was prescribed, or mild if treatment was offered, but declined. Univariate analysis was performed with ANOVA and Chi-square tests as appropriate. Relative risks (RR) were generated from Poisson regression models. RESULTS We identified 166 patients in whom the BMI (kg/m2) distribution was as follows: 33 (19.9%) had BMI <30, 49 (29.5%) had BMI 30-39.9, 50 (30.1%) had BMI 40-49.9, and 34 (20.5%) had BMI ≥50. There were no differences in race, age, or adjuvant treatment among the groups. Overall, 65 (39.2%) women reported symptoms of surgical menopause, including 19 (11.4%) mild and 46 (27.7%) severe. Symptom type did not differ by BMI; however, the prevalence of severe menopausal symptoms decreased with increasing BMI: <30 (45.5%), 30-39.9 (30.6%), 40-49.9 (22%), and ≥ 50 (14.7%); P = 0.002. Multivariate analysis confirmed that symptom prevalence decreased with increasing BMI. Compared to women with a BMI of <30, those with a BMI 40-49.9 (RR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.17-0.87) or ≥ 50 (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.70) were significantly less likely to experience menopausal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Women younger than 50 with BMI >40 and stage I endometrial cancer are significantly less likely than women with BMI <30 to experience menopausal symptoms after oophorectomy. This information may assist in peri-operative counseling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James C Cripe
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA.
| | - Tommy R Buchanan
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Lindsay M Kuroki
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Leping Wan
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Kathryn A Mills
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Leslie Massad
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Andrea R Hagemann
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Katherine C Fuh
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - David G Mutch
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Matthew A Powell
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Koji Matsuo
- Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cripe JC, Mills KA, Kuroki LK, Wan L, Hagemann AR, Fuh KC, Mutch DG, Powell MA, Thaker PH. Gynecologic Oncologists' Perceptions of Palliative Care and Associated Barriers: A Survey of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 84:50-55. [PMID: 30099446 DOI: 10.1159/000491089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Gynecologic oncologists frequently care for patients at the end of life with the aid of palliative care (PC) specialists. Our primary objectives were to identify perceived barriers to integrating specialty PC into gynecologic cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. A Likert scale captured perceptions regarding primary and specialty PC, frequent barriers to use of PC, and potential interventions. RESULTS A total of 174 (16%) gynecologic oncologists completed the survey. The majority (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that PC should be integrated into cancer care at diagnosis of advanced or metastatic cancer. The most frequently perceived PC barriers included patients' unrealistic expectations (54%), limited access to specialty PC (25%), poor reimbursement (25%), time constraints (22%), and concern of reducing hope or trust (21%). The most agreed upon potential intervention was increased access to outpatient PC (80%). CONCLUSIONS According to this cohort of SGO members, families' or patients' unrealistic expectations are the most frequent barriers to specialty PC. Understanding this communication breakdown is critically important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James C Cripe
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri,
| | - Kathryn A Mills
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Lindsay K Kuroki
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Leping Wan
- Division of Clinical Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Andrea R Hagemann
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Katherine C Fuh
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - David G Mutch
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Matthew A Powell
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Premal H Thaker
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| |
Collapse
|