OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcomes (tolerability, toxicity, and recurrence) of vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) among endometrial cancer (EC) patients treated with small cylinder size. METHODS: Patients with EC who received adjuvant VBT between September 2011 and December 2015 were reviewed. Patients were fitted with the largest vaginal cylinder they could comfortably accommodate, from 2.0–3.0 cm diameter. Small cylinders were defined as size 2.3 cm or less. Patient, tumor, or treatment characteristics were correlated with need for small cylinders. Treatment tolerability, measures of gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and vaginal toxicity, and rates of recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred four patients were included. Small cylinders were used in 51 patients (17%). Normal body mass index (BMI; p<0.001), nulligravidity (p<0.001), and shorter vaginal length (p<0.001) were associated with small cylinder size. There was no acute or late grade 3 toxicity. Rates of acute (grade 1–2) GI, GU, or vaginal symptoms were low (10%, 11%, and 19%, respectively). Small cylinder size was associated with increased likelihood of reporting acute GI (p<0.05) but not GU or vaginal symptoms. Small cylinder size was associated with higher risk of grade 1–2 vaginal stenosis (odds ratio [OR]=4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.5–14.7; p=0.007). There was no association between cylinder size and recurrence rate (p=0.55). CONCLUSION: VBT is generally very well tolerated, however, patients fitted with smaller cylinders (commonly nulligravid and low BMI) may have increased side effects. Further study to improve the dosimetry of VBT for patients requiring small cylinders may be worthwhile.
Body Mass Index ; Brachytherapy* ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Endometrial Neoplasms* ; Female ; Gravidity ; Humans ; Recurrence

Objective: To evaluate financial toxicity and assess its risk factors among patients with gynecologic cancers. Methods: This is a cross sectional study that included 2 survey tools, as well as patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment regimen. Financial toxicity is measured by validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool. Participants were also asked to complete a 55-question-survey on attitudes and perspectives surrounding cost of care. Descriptive statistics was used to report patient demographics. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated to assess the relation between financial toxicity and patient/disease related variables. Graphpad Prism Software Version 8.0 was used for analyses. Results: A total of 50 patients with various gynecologic malignancies were enrolled. Median COST score was 20.5 (range, 1–33). Sixty-five percent of the patients reported being in debt due to their cancer care and 4% filed bankruptcy. Correlation analysis showed that COST score was correlated with age (r=−0.3, p=0.028), malignancy type (r=0.3, p=0.039) and income (r=0.3, p=0.047). Ovarian cancer patients had significantly less financial toxicity (median COST score=23) when compared to patients with other gynecologic malignancies (median COST score=17, p=0.043). When scores were dichotomized into low (score ≥22) and high toxicity (score <22), 58% (29/50) of the patients were noted to have high financial toxicity. Enrollment to a clinical trial did not significantly alleviate financial burden. Conclusion Financial toxicity is a significant burden even among highly insured gynecologic oncology patients. Age, malignancy type and income were correlated with high financial burden.