Role of HPV in the Prediction of Persistence/Recurrence After Treatment for Cervical Precancer.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing after excisional treatment of cervical precancer. (2) To determine clinical factors associated with persistence of cervical precancer post-treatment. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted including patients who had a loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [HSIL]). All patients treated between 2016 and 2018 at a tertiary centre colposcopy unit were included. Persistence/recurrence of disease was defined as high-grade cytology or histology identified during the time of follow-up. Univariate and multivariate regression models were performed to identify factors associated with persistence/recurrence and HPV positivity at exit testing. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 19 months. Of the LEEP specimens, 90.8% (n = 258) demonstrated HSIL and 3.9% (n = 11) had adenocarcinoma in situ. 28.5% (n = 81) of the LEEP specimens had positive margins. In follow-up, 72.9% had negative cytology, 17.6% had atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade SIL, 1.8% had atypical squamous cells, HSIL cannot be excluded/low-grade SIL-H, and 6.7% had HSIL. At the final follow-up, 27.8% (n = 79) were HPV+. Overall rate of persistence/recurrence was 11.3% (n = 32); median time to persistence/recurrence was 6.5 months. Multivariate regression models demonstrated that follow-up HPV positivity (OR = 22.0) and positive margins (OR = 3.7) were significantly associated with persistence/recurrence. Similarly, in univariate regression models, positive margins were significant (OR = 2.2) for predicting HPV positivity in exit testing. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence/recurrence of precancer can occur due to incomplete treatment of lesions by local excision and by the persistence of HPV infection. Surveillance strategies for women treated for cervical precancer require a risk-based approach and should rely on HPV testing.

Gestational trophoblastic disease: an update.

Gestational trophoblastic diseases (GTD) encompass a spectrum of rare pre-malignant and malignant entities originating from trophoblastic tissue. This updated review will highlight important radiological features, pathology and classification, and provide insight into the clinical management of these uncommon disorders. There is a wide geographic variation with the incidence of hydatidiform mole varying between 0.57 and 2 per 1000 pregnancies. The use of ultrasound (US) in the management of early pregnancy symptoms and complications has positively impacted the earlier detection of these diseases and resulted in diminished morbidity. Additional imaging modalities are reserved for problem solving or assessment of pulmonary manifestations of molar pregnancy. Having an awareness of their pleomorphic sonographic presentation and additional pathology that can mimic GTD is critical to avoiding pitfalls. Histologic and molecular analysis further aids in differential diagnosis. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is inclusive of all malignant GTDs, and arises after 20% of molar pregnancies but can also be seen with non-molar gestations. Biochemical monitoring with human chorionic gonadotrophin is imperative for ongoing monitoring and surveillance and allows early detection of this entity. Doppler US is used for confirmation of diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reserved for problem solving or assessment of myometrial invasion. This is of heightened relevance in patients undergoing surgical management. Cross sectional imaging is reserved for patients in the setting of GTN for the purposes of staging, prognostication and in the setting of recurrent disease. This may require a combination of computed tomography, MRI and positron emission tomography. Doppler US can provide insight into chemotherapeutic response/predict resistance in patients with GTN. As our understanding of these disorders evolves, there has been maturation in management options with a shift from traditional chemotherapy to innovative immunotherapy, particularly in the setting of resistant or high-risk disease.

Directive clinique no 408 : Prise en charge des maladies gestationnelles trophoblastiques.

OBJECTIF: Cette directive passe en revue l'évaluation clinique et la prise en charge des maladies gestationnelles trophoblastiques, notamment les traitements chirurgicaux et médicamenteux des tumeurs bénignes, prémalignes et malignes. L'objectif de la présente directive clinique est d'aider les fournisseurs de soins de santé à rapidement diagnostiquer les maladies gestationnelles trophoblastiques, à normaliser les traitements et le suivi et à assurer des soins spécialisés précoces aux patientes dont l'atteinte est maligne ou métastatique. PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Gynécologues généralistes, obstétriciens, médecins de famille, sages-femmes, urgentologues, anesthésistes, radiologistes, anatomopathologistes, infirmières autorisées, infirmières praticiennes, résidents, gynécologues-oncologues, oncologues médicaux, radio-oncologues, chirurgiens, omnipraticiens en oncologie, infirmières en oncologie, pharmaciens, auxiliaires médicaux et autres professionnels de la santé qui traitent des patientes atteintes d'une maladie gestationnelle trophoblastique. La présente directive vise également à fournir des renseignements aux parties intéressées qui prodiguent des soins de suivi à ces patientes après le traitement. POPULATION CIBLE: Femmes en âge de procréer atteintes d'une maladie gestationnelle trophoblastique. OPTIONS: Les femmes ayant reçu un diagnostic de maladie gestationnelle trophoblastique doivent être orientées vers un gynécologue afin qu'il réalise une évaluation initiale, envisage une intervention chirurgicale primaire (évacuation ou hystérectomie) et effectue un suivi. Il y a lieu d'orienter les femmes ayant reçu un diagnostic de tumeur trophoblastique gestationnelle vers un gynécologue-oncologue afin qu'il effectue la stadification tumorale, établisse le score de risque et envisage l'intervention chirurgicale primaire ou un traitement systémique (mono- ou polychimiothérapie) et la nécessité d'éventuels traitements supplémentaires. Il est recommandé de discuter de chaque cas de néoplasie gestationnelle trophoblastique lors d'une réunion multidisciplinaire de cas oncologiques et de l'inscrire dans une base de données centralisée (régionale et/ou nationale). DONNéES PROBANTES: Des recherches ont été effectuées au moyen des bases de données Embase et MEDLINE, du Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials et de la Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews afin de trouver les études publiées depuis 2002 utilisant un ou plusieurs des mots clés suivants : trophoblastic neoplasms, choriocarcinoma, trophoblastic tumor, placental site, gestational trophoblastic disease, hydatidiform mole, drug therapy, surgical therapy, radiotherapy, cure, complications, recurrence, survival, prognosis, pregnancy outcome, disease outcome, treatment outcome et remission. La recherche initiale a été effectuée en avril 2017; une mise à jour a été faite en mai 2019. Les données probantes pertinentes ont été sélectionnées aux fins d'inclusion selon l'ordre suivant : méta-analyses, revues systématiques, directives cliniques, essais cliniques randomisés, études de cohortes prospectives, études observationnelles, revues non systématiques, études de séries de cas et rapports. D'autres articles pertinents ont été trouvés en recoupant les revues répertoriées. Le nombre total d'études relevées était de 673, dont 79 études sont citées dans la présente revue. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Le contenu et les recommandations ont été rédigés et acceptés par les auteurs. La direction et le conseil d'administration de la Société de gynéco-oncologie du Canada ont passé en revue le contenu de la version préliminaire et ont soumis des commentaires à prendre en considération. Le conseil d'administration de la Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada a approuvé la version définitive aux fins de publication. La qualité des données probantes a été évaluée au moyen des critères de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Consulter les tableaux dans l'annexe en ligne pour connaître les critères de notation et d'interprétation des recommandations. BéNéFICES, RISQUES, COûTS: Les présentes recommandations aideront les médecins à diagnostiquer rapidement les maladies gestationnelles trophoblastiques et à orienter de façon urgente les patientes ayant reçu un diagnostic de maladie gestationnelle trophoblastique en gynécologie oncologique pour une prise en charge spécialisée. Le traitement des néoplasies gestationnelles trophoblastiques en centre spécialisé combiné à l'utilisation de bases de données centralisées permet de recueillir et de comparer des données sur les résultats thérapeutiques des patientes atteintes de ces tumeurs rares et d'optimiser les soins aux patientes. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES (CLASSEMENT GRADE ENTRE PARENTHèSES): RECOMMANDATIONS (CLASSEMENT GRADE ENTRE PARENTHèSES).

Guideline No. 408: Management of Gestational Trophoblastic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline reviews the clinical evaluation and management of gestational trophoblastic diseases, including surgical and medical management of benign, premalignant, and malignant entities. The objective of this guideline is to assist health care providers in promptly diagnosing gestational trophoblastic diseases, to standardize treatment and follow-up, and to ensure early specialized care of patients with malignant or metastatic disease. INTENDED USERS: General gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, midwives, emergency department physicians, anaesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, residents, gynaecologic oncologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, general practitioners in oncology, oncology nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, and other health care providers who treat patients with gestational trophoblastic diseases. This guideline is also intended to provide information for interested parties who provide follow-up care for these patients following treatment. TARGET POPULATION: Women of reproductive age with gestational trophoblastic diseases. OPTIONS: Women diagnosed with a gestational trophoblastic disease should be referred to a gynaecologist for initial evaluation and consideration for primary surgery (uterine evacuation or hysterectomy) and follow-up. Women diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia should be referred to a gynaecologic oncologist for staging, risk scoring, and consideration for primary surgery or systemic therapy (single- or multi-agent chemotherapy) with the potential need for additional therapies. All cases of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia should be discussed at a multidisciplinary cancer case conference and registered in a centralized (regional and/or national) database. EVIDENCE: Relevant studies from 2002 onwards were searched in Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews using the following terms, either alone or in combination: trophoblastic neoplasms, choriocarcinoma, trophoblastic tumor, placental site, gestational trophoblastic disease, hydatidiform mole, drug therapy, surgical therapy, radiotherapy, cure, complications, recurrence, survival, prognosis, pregnancy outcome, disease outcome, treatment outcome, and remission. The initial search was performed in April 2017 and updated in May 2019. Relevant evidence was selected for inclusion in the following order: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, non-systematic reviews, case series, and reports. Additional significant articles were identified through cross-referencing the identified reviews. The total number of studies identified was 673, with 79 studies cited in this review. VALIDATION METHODS: The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the authors. The Executive and Board of Directors of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada reviewed the content and submitted comments for consideration, and the Board of Directors for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework. See the online appendix tables for key to grading and interpretation of recommendations. BENEFITS: These guidelines will assist physicians in promptly diagnosing gestational trophoblastic diseases and urgently referring patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia to gynaecologic oncology for specialized management. Treating gestational trophoblastic neoplasia in specialized centres with the use of centralized databases allows for capturing and comparing data on treatment outcomes of patients with these rare tumours and for optimizing patient care. SUMMARY STATEMENTS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES): RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES).

Validation of an online tool for early prediction of the failure-risk in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia patients treated with methotrexate.

PURPOSE: In a low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) treated with methotrexate (MTX), the modeled hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) residual concentration (hCGres), calculated with NONMEM program® (NM) during the first 50 treatment days, is a predictor of MTX-resistance risk. This model was implemented with another algorithm on https://www.biomarker-kinetics.org/hCG . The objective was to confirm the validity of the website estimations with respect to NM. METHODS: The consistencies of modeled hCGres estimated by NM and by the website were assessed in a dataset of 60 fictive patients with simulated hCG profiles, as well as in an independent database of 531 actual patients. Moreover, the hCGres predictive values regarding MTX failure-risk were assessed. RESULTS: The values of hCGres obtained with both methods were highly consistent in the fictive patient and in the actual patient datasets: median relative prediction errors (RPE) were - 0.059 and 9.9 × 10-7, respectively. The ROC AUCs for predictions of MTX failure-risk were 0.90 (95% CI 0.87,0.93) with both NM and the website. The gradual association between increasing hCGres and the 2-year MTX failure-free survival was confirmed. CONCLUSION: There is a high consistency of hCGres estimates obtained with the two methods. The website is meant to help clinicians in the interpretation of hCG decline curves of MTX-treated GTN patients. hCGres is now validated for more than 1690 patients in four independent datasets, and its recognition as an early predictor of MTX resistance for treatment adjustment and for the future studies should be considered.

Single or two drug combination therapy as initial treatment for low risk, gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. A Canadian analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, WHO prognostic score of 0 to 6, is highly curable. There is no consensus on the optimal chemotherapy. Common regimens are q2wk actinomycin-D (ACT-D), weekly intramuscular methotrexate (MTX) or multi-day MTX. Combination MTX/ACT-D is rarely used. METHODS: A four centre, retrospective cohort study was carried out comparing commonly used regimens: weekly MTX, q2weekly ACT-D and q2 weekly MTX and ACT-D. RESULTS: 412 patients - 196 MTX/ACT-D, 107 MTX, 109 ACT-D - were treated between October 1994 and January 2019. Initial regimen failure (secondary to resistance or toxicity) occurred in 37% (MTX), 21% (ACT-D) and 5% (MTX/ACT-D). Relapse after completion of primary therapy (initial plus switch to another therapy if needed) was rare (0-5%). All eventually were cured. Mean number of cycles required to achieve remission were 10.1 (MTX), 7 (ACT-D) and 5.6 (MTX/ACT-D) with corresponding mean treatment durations of 3.12, 2.9 and 2.26 months. Dosage reductions occurred in 3% (MTX), 0% (ACT-D) and 29% (MTX/ACT-D). Higher failure rates occurred with WHO prognostic scores of 5 to 6 and HCG levels ≥10,000. SUMMARY: Initial regimen failure ie the need to switch to an alternative treatment was more common with MTX. ACT-D and MTX/ACT-D were similar within prognostic score 0-4 or HCG < 10,000. ACT-D then appears the better initial choice with its superior convenience. Above these levels primary failure rates are less with MTX/ACT-D, making it a better choice.

Sentinel lymph nodes in vulvar cancer: Management dilemmas in patients with positive nodes and larger tumors.

BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has been routinely used in the treatment of invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), questions still remain regarding the management of patients with positive nodes, as well as its use in patients with larger tumors. METHODS: Retrospective study of all patients at a single institution with primary vulvar cancer who had SLN biopsy (2008-2015). Patient and tumor characteristics were collected from hospital records. For patients with positive SLN and for those with tumors ≥40 mm, recurrence rates and location were specifically recorded. RESULTS: SLN biopsy was successful in 159 patients (245 groins). Median follow-up was 31 months. 120 patients (187 groins) had a negative SLN without an inguinofemoral lymph node dissection (IFL); there were 6 ipsilateral groin recurrences (5%). 7 patients had micrometastasis (≤2 mm) in the SLN and were treated by radiotherapy. There were no recurrences in the irradiated groins. 19 patients with a positive unilateral SLN had bilateral IFL. One (5.3%) had a positive node in the contralateral groin. 9 patients with positive unilateral SLN had subsequent ipsilateral IFL; there were no groin recurrences in the contralateral groin. 20 patients had tumor size ≥40 mm. 11 patients had a negative SLN biopsy, and thus no IFL; of these patients, 1 had an isolated groin recurrence (9%). CONCLUSION: These data suggest it is reasonable to omit a full groin dissection for micrometastatic disease in the SLN, and to perform a unilateral groin dissection in patients with unilateral SLN metastasis. SLN alone in larger tumors may have a higher groin recurrence rate.

Intraoperative consultation in gynecologic pathology: a 6-year audit at a tertiary care medical center.

BACKGROUND: Most of the literature on intraoperative consultation (IOC) in gynecologic pathology focuses on the accuracy of this technique. This study addresses a wide range of quality assurance issues regarding this practice through a comprehensive audit of our experience. DESIGN: The anatomic pathology database was searched between 1999 and 2005 for all gynecologic cases who received IOCs. Seven hundred thirty-one IOCs rendered were identified and analyzed. The accuracy of IOC by gynecologic pathologists was comparable to that of surgical pathologists. RESULTS: Patient care was potentially negatively impacted in 14 IOCs; 2 were conducted by the former and 12 by the latter group. Management of ovarian tumors with borderline features significantly improved when the terminology of "at least borderline" was used. Intraoperative consultation by gross inspection only had a low accuracy of 94.7%. Intraoperative consultation was able to definitively and correctly answer the question of whether an ovarian tumor was primary or metastatic in only 35% of patients. As a result of the IOC, the surgical procedure proceeded as originally intended in 96% of patients, was modified in 2%, and was terminated in 2%. CONCLUSIONS: This audit identifies certain procedural and communication strategies that can increase accuracy. It also highlights the situations where IOC could be less reliable. Patient's safety can increase by improving the communication between the surgeons and the consultant pathologist, consulting with gynecologic pathologists in oncology cases whenever feasible, and using the term of "at least borderline" rather than "borderline."

Treating vulvar cancer in the new millennium: are patients receiving optimal care?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to describe patterns of care of invasive vulvar carcinoma in the province of Ontario, Canada. Our ultimate goal is to improve vulvar cancer care by understanding variations in care and their impact on outcome. In this pilot study, we specifically evaluate the use of groin node dissection (GND). METHODS: The provincial cancer registry was used to identify incident cases of vulvar carcinoma diagnosed between 1994 and 2003. These cases were linked to physician billings claims and hospital discharge records to identify treatment given in the first year after diagnosis. RESULTS: The cohort included 978 women with vulvar carcinoma. 85% had at least one surgical procedure. 62% of these had a GND. GND was more likely in those who were treated by a gynecologic oncologist or who had less co-morbid illness. Approximately 25% received radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: The rate of GND appears to be low. As proper management of the groins is critical for most patients with vulvar cancer, this observation raises concerns about the quality of treatment received by patients with vulvar carcinoma. Further investigation is required to verify the observations made in this hypothesis generating study.

Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed patient records in our tertiary care teaching hospital to assess the value of the mandatory slide review policy in gynecologic oncology with emphasis on completeness of reports. METHODS: Cases reviewed between October 2001 to September 2002 were studied. Clinical information was gathered from discussions at the weekly tumor board and from chart review. The standardized reporting guidelines in benchmark surgical pathology textbooks were used to assess the completeness of original pathology reports of excisional specimens. Diagnostic discrepancies were classified as major if the resultant change led to alteration of management or minor if it did not. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-one cases were reviewed; 173 biopsies and 178 excisional specimens. Only 140 (78.7%) of the original pathology reports of the latter group conformed to standardized reporting guidelines. Of the 38 incomplete reports, 18 were missing critical information necessary for planning of further therapy, representing 10.1% of reports of all excisional specimens. We agreed with the original diagnosis in 252 cases (71.8%). Minor discrepancies were noted in 70 (19.9%) and major discrepancies in 29 cases (8.3%). No major discrepancy resulted from reviewing any of the vulvar specimens or cases that were already reviewed by gynecologic pathologists of other academic institutes. CONCLUSION: Mandatory slide review in gynecologic oncology is an important component in the management of gynecologic cancer patients because it completes reporting on missing parameters required for planning subsequent therapy in 10.1% of cases and recognizes discrepancies altering management in 8.3% of patients.