Surgeon Attitudes Toward Concurrent Urogynecologic and Gynecologic Oncology Procedures: A Cross-sectional Survey

• Published in: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
• Main Authors: Lai, Erica, Goldberg, Gary L, Shalom, Dara
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.07.2022
• ISSN: 2154-4212
• DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001191

There is increasing overlap in the urogynecologic and gynecologic oncologic patient populations. To improve patient advocacy and access to care, a collaborative surgical approach may benefit this cohort. The aim of the study was to evaluate surgeon attitudes toward performing concurrent urogynecologic and gynecologic oncology procedures. We hypothesized that most surgeons are amenable to collaboration. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire of members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Urogynecologic Society from August to November 2020. A 23-item online survey was created to assess surgeon demographics, practice and screening patterns, and attitudes toward surgical collaboration. We also evaluated obstacles to performing joint procedures and assessed whether attitudes could be influenced by new information. A total of 338 surveys were included in the analysis, including 158 urogynecologists and 226 gynecologic oncologists (GOs). Most surgeons (77.8%) will recommend concurrent procedures with another specialty, and 97.8% of urogynecologists and 95.7% of oncologists currently perform joint surgical procedures. Male surgeons, regardless of specialty, were more likely to recommend staged procedures (44% vs 31%, P < 0.001), as were GOs (28% vs 10.1%, P < 0.001). However, oncologists were more likely than urogynecologists to initiate referrals for surgical collaboration (33.3% vs 14.4%, P < 0.001). A total of 22.2% of urogynecologists and oncologists prefer staging surgical procedures. The most common barrier to a combined procedure was logistics. Urogynecologists were more concerned about the effects of cancer treatments on healing, the use of mesh implants, and financial reimbursements as compared with GOs. Treatment delay was a significantly greater concern for the oncologists.