The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy. METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used. RESULTS: We identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5). CONCLUSION: This multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.

Molecular profiles of endometrial cancer tumors among Black patients.

OBJECTIVES: Disparate outcomes exist between Black and White patients with endometrial cancer (EC). One contributing factor is the disproportionately low representation of Black patients in clinical trials and in tumor molecular profiling studies. Our objective was to investigate molecular profiles of ECs in a cohort with a high proportion of tumors from Black patients. METHODS: A total of 248 EC samples and self-reported race data were collected from 6 institutions. Comprehensive tumor profiling and analyses were performed by Caris Life Sciences. RESULTS: Tumors from 105 (42%) Black and 143 (58%) White patients were included. Serous histology (58% vs 36%) and carcinosarcoma (25% vs 16%), was more common among Black patients, and endometrioid was less common (17% vs 48%) (p < 0.01). Differences in gene mutations between cohorts corresponded to observed histologic differences between races. Specifically, TP53 mutations were predominant in serous tumors. In endometrioid tumors, mutations in ARID1A were the most common, and high rates of MSI-H, MMRd, and TMB-H were observed. In carcinosarcoma tumors, hormone receptor expression was high in tumors of Black patients (PR 23.4%, ER 30.8%). When stratified by histology, there were no significant differences between tumors from Black and White women. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort had a high proportion of tumors from Black women. Distinct molecular profiles were driven primarily by more aggressive histologic subtypes among Black women. Continued effort is needed to include Black women and other populations under-represented in EC molecular profiling studies as targeted therapies and personalized medicine become mainstream.

Minority participation in phase 1 gynecologic oncology clinical trials: Three decades of inequity.

OBJECTIVES: It is important to develop effective therapies in minorities to ensure equity in cancer care. Underrepresentation of minorities in early phase trials may cause therapies that are effective only in majority populations. We evaluated minority participation in gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials. METHODS: In peer-reviewed published articles of gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials from years 1985 to 2018, we manually abstracted racial distribution of enrolled participants, cancer type, and year published. We calculated expected and observed ratios of racial participation on the basis of age-adjusted cancer incidence for race from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: We identified 357 articles of phase 1 trials (total, 9492 participants), including 213 articles on ovarian cancer (60%). Racial distribution of participants was available in 84 articles (23%) that included 2483 participants (26%): 1950 white (79%), 140 black (5%), and 393 other participants (16%). Other nonwhite races exceeded black enrollment in 46 of 84 trials (55%) that listed race. Enrollment of black participants was less than expected from disease incidence for ovarian (incidence-to-enrollment ratio, 18.5; P < .001), endometrial (3.6; P < .001), and cervical cancer (6.8; P < .001). No phase 1 study met expected enrollment for black participants. Frequency of black participants decreased 1.8-fold from 1995 to 1999 (8 of 70 participants [11%]) to 2015-2018 (55 of 892 participants [6%]; P < .025). CONCLUSIONS: Major racial underrepresentation exists in gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials. Enrollment of more black participants is needed to achieve racial equity.