British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential 'salvage' measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society/British Association of Gynaecological Pathology consensus for germline and tumor testing for BRCA1/2 variants in ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom.

The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists established a multidisciplinary consensus group comprising experts in surgical gynecological oncology, medical oncology, genetics, and laboratory science, and clinical nurse specialists to identify the optimal pathways to BRCA germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer in routine clinical practice. In particular, the group explored models of consent, quality standards identified at pathology laboratories, and experience and data from pioneering cancer centers. The group liaised with representatives from ovarian cancer charities to also identify patient perspectives that would be important to implementation. Recommendations from these consensus group deliberations are presented in this manuscript.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations and guidance on patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU).

The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative through the National Health Service (NHS) improvement in the UK started the implementation of stratified pathways of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) across various tumor types. Now the initiative is continued through the Living With and Beyond Cancer program by NHS England. Evidence from non-randomized studies and systematic reviews does not demonstrate a survival advantage to the long-established practice of hospital-based follow-up regimens, traditionally over 5 years. Evidence shows that patient needs are inadequately met under the traditional follow-up programs and there is therefore an urgent need to adapt pathways to the needs of patients. The assumption that hospital-based follow-up is able to detect cancer recurrences early and hence improve patient prognosis has not been validated. A recent survey demonstrates that follow-up practice across the UK varies widely, with telephone follow-up clinics, nurse-led clinics and PIFU becoming increasingly common. There are currently no completed randomized controlled trials in PIFU in gynecological malignancies, although there is a drive towards implementing PIFU. PIFU aims to individualize patient care, based on risk of recurrence and holistic needs, and optimizing resources. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society wishes to provide the gynecological oncology community with guidance and a recommendations statement regarding the value, indications, and limitations of PIFU in endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and vulvar cancers in an effort to standardize practice and improve patient care.

Expert recommendations on the management of hypertension in patients with ovarian and cervical cancer receiving bevacizumab in the UK.

Bevacizumab is an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody that may prolong survival in ovarian and cervical cancer when given in combination with chemotherapy. It works by blocking the signalling pathways that are required for tumour angiogenesis, potentially limiting the cancer's ability to grow and spread. Hypertension is a known side effect of all angiogenesis inhibitors and could lead to interruption or premature discontinuation of effective anti-cancer treatment. Hypertension may also act as a barrier to the initiation of such treatment. In this review, we aim to present clear and practical recommendations on the management of blood pressure in ovarian and cervical cancer patients before, during and after bevacizumab treatment. This guidance covers considerations before initiating bevacizumab therapy and recommendations on the management of patients who develop hypertension, or who experience worsening of pre-existing hypertension, during bevacizumab treatment, and once the course of bevacizumab has been completed. These recommendations were developed collaboratively by a group of clinicians, comprising cardiologists, oncologists, a general practitioner and specialist oncology nurses, with expertise and practical experience in either oncology or hypertension. The aim of these recommendations is to support oncologists with hypertension assessment and management to facilitate starting or continuing bevacizumab.

Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: The top ten unanswered research questions.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecological cancer in developed nations and its incidence is rising. As a direct consequence, more women are dying from EC despite advances in care and improved survivorship. There is a lack of research activity and funding, as well as public awareness about EC. We sought to engage patients, carers and healthcare professionals to identify the most important unanswered research questions in EC. METHODOLOGY: The priority setting methodology was developed by the James Lind Alliance and involved four key stages: gathering research questions; checking these against existing evidence; interim prioritisation; and a final consensus meeting during which the top ten unanswered research questions were agreed using modified nominal group methodology. RESULTS: Our first online survey yielded 786 individual submissions from 413 respondents, of whom 211 were EC survivors or carers, and from which 202 unique unanswered research questions were generated. 253 individuals, including 108 EC survivors and carers, completed an online interim prioritisation survey. The resulting top 30 questions were ranked in a final consensus meeting. Our top ten spanned the breadth of patient experience of this disease and included developing personalised risk scoring, refining criteria for specialist referral, understanding the underlying biology of different types of EC, developing novel personalised treatment and prevention strategies, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, increasing public awareness and interventions for psychological issues. CONCLUSION: Having established the top ten unanswered research questions in EC, we hope this galvanises researchers, healthcare professionals and the public to collaborate, coordinate and invest in research to improve the lives of women affected by EC.

Vaginal dilator therapy for women receiving pelvic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal dilation therapy is advocated after pelvic radiotherapy to prevent stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the vagina), but can be uncomfortable and psychologically distressing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of different types of vaginal dilation methods offered to women treated by pelvic radiotherapy for cancer. SEARCH METHODS: Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 24) and CINAHL (1982 to 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative data of any type, which evaluated dilation or penetration of the vagina after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and therefore analysed no data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies for inclusion in the original review or for this update. However, we felt that some studies that were excluded warranted discussion. These included one randomised trial (RCT), which showed no improvement in sexual scores associated with encouraging women to practise dilation therapy; a recent small RCT that did not show any advantage to dilation over vibration therapy during radiotherapy; two non-randomised comparative studies; and five correlation studies. One of these showed that objective measurements of vaginal elasticity and length were not linked to dilation during radiotherapy, but the study lacked power. One study showed that women who dilated tolerated a larger dilator, but the risk of objectivity and bias with historical controls was high. Another study showed that the vaginal measurements increased in length by a mean of 3 cm after dilation was introduced 6 to 10 weeks after radiotherapy, but there was no control group; another case series showed the opposite. Three recent studies showed less stenosis associated with prophylactic dilation after radiotherapy. One small case series suggested that dilation years after radiotherapy might restore the vagina to a functional length. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence to show that routine, regular vaginal dilation during radiotherapy treatment prevents stenosis or improves quality of life. Several observational studies have examined the effect of dilation therapy after radiotherapy. They suggest that frequent dilation practice is associated with lower rates of self reported stenosis. This could be because dilation is effective or because women with a healthy vagina are more likely to comply with dilation therapy instructions compared to women with strictures. We would normally suggest that a RCT is needed to distinguish between a casual and causative link, but pilot studies highlight many reasons why RCT methodology is challenging in this area.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians' Perspective.

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres; however, there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians' and clinical specialist nurses' (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national "Personalising Endometrial Cancer Follow-up" educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians' views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC; however, barriers were identified for non-English-speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients' personal needs and preferences.

Competencies of the UK nursing and midwifery workforce to mainstream genomics in the National Health Service: the ongoing gap between perceived importance and confidence in genomics.

The United Kingdom is recognised worldwide as a leader in genomics. The use of genomic technologies in the National Health Service (NHS) is expected to deliver faster and more accurate diagnoses, supporting personalized treatments to improve patient outcomes. The ambition of embedding genomic medicine in the diagnostic pathway requires involvement of the front-line clinical workforce, known as 'mainstreaming'. Nurses and midwives are the largest professionally qualified workforce in the National Health Service thus, it is anticipated that they will play key roles in mainstreaming. This study investigated the level of competence/confidence of practicing nurses and midwives to support mainstreaming and their perception of the importance of genomics in delivery of patient care. A literature review of genetics/genomics competency frameworks, semi structured interviews of lead nurses and stakeholders were conducted to identify relevant competencies needed for mainstreaming. These were then used to survey four cohorts of nurses (n = 153) across England in four consecutive years (2019-22). The confidence level of these professionals in all aspects of genomics was 2.07 ± 0.47 measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1"Low confidence"; 5 "High confidence"). Intriguingly, these professionals all appreciated the importance of genomics for their patient care (4.01 ± 0.06). Whilst the importance scores increased, the confidence scores declined at the time when major genomic transformation took place in the NHS (e.g.: launch of the Genomic Medicine Service, the National Genomic Test Directory). To bridge this gap, relevant genomic education can play key roles. However, nurses and midwives were found to be grossly underrepresented in formal genomic education courses offered by Health Education England Genomics Education Programme since 2014. This may result from the lack of direct applicability of the currently offered courses for their practice and role. Thematic analysis revealed that nurses and midwives wish to support their patients by providing more information on their condition, inheritance, and treatment options in combination with the use of relevant genetic counselling skills. This study identified easy to follow competencies for embedding genomics into routine clinical care. We propose a training programme that addresses the gap that nurses and midwives currently have, to enable them to harness genomic opportunities for patients and services.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer after hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial adenocarcinoma (womb cancer) is a malignant growth of the lining (endometrium) of the womb (uterus). It is distinct from sarcomas (tumours of the uterine muscle). Survival depends the risk of microscopic metastases after surgery. Adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy improves survival from some other adenocarcinomas, and there is evidence that endometrial cancer is sensitive to cytotoxic therapy. This systematic review examines the effect of chemotherapy on survival after hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy of adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy for endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to August 2010, registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with any other adjuvant treatment or no other treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a random-effects meta-analysis to assess hazard ratios (HR) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RR) to compare death rates and site of initial relapse. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs compared no additional treatment with additional chemotherapy after hysterectomy and radiotherapy. Four trials compared platinum based combination chemotherapy directly with radiotherapy. Indiscriminate pooling of survival data from 2197 women shows a significant overall survival advantage from adjuvant chemotherapy (RR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.79 to 0.99)). Sensitivity analysis focused on trials of modern platinum based chemotherapy regimens and found the relative risk of death to be 0.85 ((0.76 to 0.96); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) = 25; absolute risk reduction = 4% (1% to 8%)). The HR for overall survival is 0.74 (0.64 to 0.89), significantly favouring the addition of postoperative platinum based chemotherapy. The HR for progression-free survival is 0.75 (0.64 to 0.89). This means that chemotherapy reduces the risk of being dead at any censorship by a quarter. Chemotherapy reduces the risk of developing the first recurrence outside the pelvis (RR = 0.79 (0.68 to 0.92), 5% absolute risk reduction; NNT = 20). The analysis of pelvic recurrence rates is underpowered but the trend suggests that chemotherapy may be less effective than radiotherapy in a direct comparison (RR = 1.28 (0.97 to 1.68)) but it may have added value when used with radiotherapy (RR = 0.48 (0.20 to 1.18)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative platinum based chemotherapy is associated with a small benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of radiotherapy treatment. It reduces the risk of developing a metastasis, could be an alternative to radiotherapy and has added value when used with radiotherapy.

Vaginal dilator therapy for women receiving pelvic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Many vaginal dilator therapy guidelines advocate routine vaginal dilation during and after pelvic radiotherapy to prevent stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the vagina). The UK Gynaecological Oncology Nurse Forum recommend dilation "three times weekly for an indefinite time period". The UK patient charity Cancer Backup advises using vaginal dilators from two to eight weeks after the end of radiotherapy treatment. Australian guidelines recommend dilation after brachytherapy "as soon as is comfortably possible" and "certainly within four weeks and to continue for three years or indefinitely if possible". However, dilation is intrusive, uses health resources and can be psychologically distressing. It has also caused rare but very serious damage to the rectum. OBJECTIVES: To review the benefits and harms of vaginal dilation therapy associated with pelvic radiotherapy for cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2008) and CINAHL (1982 to 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any comparative randomised controlled trials (RCT) or data of any type which compared dilation or penetration of the vagina after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed the mean difference in sexual function scores and the risk ratio for non-compliance at six weeks and three months in single trial analyses. No trials met the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Dilation during or immediately after radiotherapy can, in rare cases, cause damage and there is no persuasive evidence from any study to demonstrate that it prevents stenosis. Data from one RCT showed no improvement in sexual scores in women who were encouraged to practice dilation. Two case series and one comparative study using historical controls suggest that dilation might be associated with a longer vaginal length but these data cannot reasonably be interpreted to show that dilation caused the change in the vagina. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine dilation during or soon after cancer treatment may be harmful. There is no reliable evidence to show that routine regular vaginal dilation during or after radiotherapy prevents the late effects of radiotherapy or improves quality of life. Gentle vaginal exploration might separate the vaginal walls before they can stick together and some women may benefit from dilation therapy once inflammation has settled but there are no good comparative supporting data.

BGCS uterine cancer guidelines: Recommendations for practice.

The British Gynaecological Cancer Society has issued the first Endometrial (Uterine) Cancer guidelines as recommendation for practice for the UK.