Cervical cancer in Eastern Europe: review and proceedings from the Cervical Cancer Research Conference.

Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer among women worldwide, with a disproportionately high burden of disease in less-developed regions of the world. The Cervix Cancer Research Network was founded by the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup with a mission to improve outcomes in cervical cancer by enhancing international access to clinical trials, specifically in under-represented, underdeveloped areas. The Cervix Cancer Research Network held its third international educational symposium in Bucharest in 2018 and is the subject of this report. The purpose of this symposium was to advance the international understanding of cervical cancer treatment patterns, to foster recruitment to Cervix Cancer Research Network clinical trials, and identify key Cervix Cancer Research Network clinical trial concepts to improve cervical cancer care worldwide.

Cervical cancer: A global health crisis.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common malignancy diagnosed in women worldwide. Nearly all cases of cervical cancer result from infection with the human papillomavirus, and the prevention of cervical cancer includes screening and vaccination. Primary treatment options for patients with cervical cancer may include surgery or a concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Cervical cancer causes more than one quarter of a million deaths per year as a result of grossly deficient treatments in many developing countries. This warrants a concerted global effort to counter the shocking loss of life and suffering that largely goes unreported. This article provides a review of the biology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer, and discusses the global cervical cancer crisis and efforts to improve the prevention and treatment of the disease in underdeveloped countries. Cancer 2017;123:2404-12. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Resisting RECIST-Uniformity Versus Clinical Validity.

OBJECTIVES: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) International Working Group developed criteria for tumor response and progression to standardize radiological assessment in patients receiving chemotherapy in phase 2 trials. However, it is unclear whether the defined percentage change in tumor size and volume reflects true clinical benefit for the patient. The RECIST criteria were designed to improve objectivity in trials, but not to replace clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' opinions about RECIST in current oncology practice. METHODS: Using Web-based questionnaires, we investigated attitudes to the use of RECIST at a large comprehensive cancer center and in an international group of gynecologic cancer specialists through the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup. The results reported here relate to the survey focusing on gynecologic cancer. RESULTS: Sixty medical professionals from 13 countries responded to the survey. The majority of respondents worked at a tertiary or specialist cancer center (51; 86%). Overall, 66% of respondents felt RECIST increased trial objectivity and was a good measure of response. The majority of respondents (81%) reported that they infrequently challenged RECIST evaluation. Overall, 60% felt more than 10% of patients came off trial for clinical rather than radiological progression. In the context of a new small lesion, only 35% felt that should always be considered disease progression. The importance of both clinician and radiologist input was highlighted with nontarget progression. Nontarget progression and target progression were recognized as equally important for clinical decision making (72%). CONCLUSIONS: RECIST is a key criterion for endpoint assessment in clinical trials with its value recognized by clinicians. However, this survey also highlights the practical limitations of RECIST. Disconnect can be seen between the radiological result and the clinical picture-learning from these patients is critical. Continued efforts to improve metrics assessing patient benefit in trials remains a priority.

The Impact of an International Network (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) for Clinical Research on Global Capacity for Gynecologic Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate that the construction of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GCIG is a collaboration of 29 international cooperative clinical trial groups committed to conduct of high-quality phase 3 trials among women with gynecologic cancer. A complete bibliography of the reported phase 3 trials has been developed and is available on the GCIG Web site http://www.gciggroup.com. A "GCIG trial" is a trial in which any 2 or more GCIG member groups are formally involved. We reviewed the output of the GCIG from 1997 to 2015 with respect to member participation and quality of publication (impact factor and citation index). The publications are considered in 3 cohorts, 1997 to 2002, 2003 to 2008, and 2009 to 2014, for the purposes of comparison and progress. A social network map has been developed for these publications to identify how the GCIG has increased capacity for clinical trials globally. RESULTS: Using a global map, the number of member groups in the GCIG has increased in each of the 3 periods. The total annual number of publications and citations within the 1997 to 2015 period has increased significantly. The average number of citations per publication is demonstrated in each of the 3 periods. The steady increase in the number of citations is used as a proxy for the impact of the publications. The impact factor of the journal and the number of citations are reported for the 10 most highly cited publications. Finally, using a social networking methodology, networking has visibly and numerically increased in each of the 3 periods. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports that the construction of the GCIG has increased collaboration and accrual to high-quality phase 3 trials at a global level among women with gynecologic cancer.

Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN): Improving Access to Cervix Cancer Trials on a Global Scale.

Eighty-seven percent of cervix cancer occurs in less-developed regions of the world, and there is up to an 18-fold difference in mortality rate for cervix cancer depending on the region of the world. The Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN) was founded through the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup with the aim of improving access to clinical trials in cervix cancer worldwide, and in so doing improving standards of care. The CCRN recently held its first international educational symposium in Bangkok. Sixty-two participants attended from 16 different countries including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Columbia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. The focus of this symposium was to evaluate progress, to promote new clinical trials for the CCRN, and to provide education regarding the role of brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

The global impact of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup in enhancing clinical trials in ovarian cancer.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) has developed from a small network of ovarian cancer researchers to a large international forum addressing multiple issues related to research in gynecologic cancers. Member groups of the GCIG have collaboratively conducted pivotal clinical trials in cancers of the ovary, endometrium, and cervix. The participation of operational and statistical personnel from the GCIG member groups has facilitated a collegial approach to international differences and restrictions.One of the powerful initiatives of the GCIG is the facilitation of the Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference every few years. The 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference was held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010, and the resulting publications (herein) provide an invaluable resource to researchers in the field of gynecologic oncology.

2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer. This report provides the outcomes from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

First-line therapy in ovarian cancer trials.

At the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010, representatives of 23 cooperative research groups studying gynecologic cancers gathered to establish international consensus on issues critical to the conduct of large randomized trials. The process focused on 13 predetermined questions. Group A, 1 of the 3 discussion groups, addressed the first 5 questions, examining first-line therapies in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. A1: What are the appropriate end points for different trials (maintenance, upfront chemotherapy trials including molecular drugs)? A2: Are there any subgroups defined by tumor biology who need specific treatment options/trials? A3: Is the 2004 GCIG-recommended standard comparator arm still valid? A4: What is the role of modifying dose, schedule, and delivery of chemotherapy? A5: What role does surgery play today?

Clinical trials in recurrent ovarian cancer.

The 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup was held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010. Representatives of 23 cooperative research groups studying gynecologic cancers gathered to establish international consensus on issues critical to the conduct of large randomized trials. Group C, 1 of the 3 discussion groups, examined recurrent ovarian cancer, and we report the consensus reached regarding 4 questions. These included the following: (1) What is the role of cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer? (2) How do we define distinct patient populations in need of specific therapeutic approaches? (3) Should end points for trials with recurrent disease vary from those of first-line trials? (4) Is CA-125 progression alone sufficient for entry/eligibility into clinical trials?

Role of molecular agents and targeted therapy in clinical trials for women with ovarian cancer.

There is now a greater understanding of the molecular pathways in ovarian cancer, and using this knowledge, a large number of new therapeutic agents can be tested. The success of these drugs will depend on selecting drugs that target known key dysfunctional molecular pathways. To make best use of these compounds, prognostic and predictive biomarkers need to be identified. Novel methods of assessment such as functional imaging need to be developed as additional biological end points to evaluate these therapies. Promising antitumor activity has been observed with some drugs, and careful consideration is needed to determine in what circumstances new agents, such as antiangiogenic compounds, could be considered as a standard therapy. These areas were discussed at the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

Determining the relationship between toxicity and quality of life in an ovarian cancer chemotherapy clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This analysis of data from a randomized trial of chemotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer sought to determine whether a relationship exists between the presence and severity of the most commonly observed toxic effects and the corresponding quality of life (QOL) items. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-two eligible patients accrued from Canada by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group on a randomized trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide/cisplatin were included in the analysis. Toxicity to the chemotherapeutic treatments was subjectively evaluated using a trial-specific checklist for ovarian cancer and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C30+3 questionnaire. Assessments were conducted at baseline, before each cycle of treatment (3 weeks), and at each 3-month follow-up during the next 2 years (or until progression). RESULTS: The most frequently observed symptoms experienced during or shortly following chemotherapy were neurosensory loss, lethargy, nausea, vomiting, and alopecia. Regression analyses revealed that change scores of QOL items related to motor weakness and gastrointestinal pain were common predictors for the change global QOL score during protocol treatment; and change scores of QOL items related to lethargy or fatigue and change toxicity grade of mood predicted the change global QOL score after patients were off treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C30+3 and trial-specific checklist was able to assess the effect of expected toxicities on patient' s QOL during and following treatment, and so may be useful in addressing the concerns regarding methodological issues that have limited the acquisition of prospective, longitudinal treatment-related toxicity data.

Quality of life in ovarian cancer patients: comparison of paclitaxel plus cisplatin, with cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin in a randomized study.

PURPOSE: Formal quality-of-life (QOL) assessments may contribute important information on patient symptoms. Despite many trials of systemic chemotherapy in ovarian cancer, reports of its effect on QOL are few. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QOL was assessed in an Intergroup randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin in women with advanced ovarian cancer. One hundred fifty-two eligible patients accrued in Canada completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and a trial-specific checklist at baseline (after surgical debulking) and at regular intervals during and after chemotherapy. Mean change scores over time in the two arms were calculated. RESULTS: Compliance with QOL questionnaire completion was excellent (81% to 93%). In general, deterioration was seen in the QOL domains immediately after chemotherapy (day 8 of cycle 1), followed by clinically meaningful improvements compared with baseline (change scores > or = 10) in both arms during the treatment period in a number of domains and items, including global QOL, emotional function, social function, fatigue, pain, sleep, constipation, appetite, abdominal swelling, and abdominal cramps. Improvements in global QOL persisted for the duration of follow-up. More neurosensory effects and myalgia were documented in the paclitaxel arm; however, this did not adversely affect global or other domains of QOL and improved once chemotherapy was completed. CONCLUSION: Improvement from baseline in QOL measures was seen in both treatment arms. The greater neurologic and muscle toxicity of paclitaxel did not adversely influence QOL. QOL data can contribute useful information on the experience of symptoms and their time course, which may assist patients and physicians in their discussion about the anticipated effects of therapy.

The cervix cancer research network: increasing access to cancer clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of cervical cancer is large and growing in developing countries, due in large part to limited access to screening services and lack of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. In spite of modern advances in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, outcomes from cervical cancer have not markedly improved in recent years. Novel clinical trials are urgently needed to improve outcomes from cervical cancer worldwide. METHODS: The Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN), a subsidiary of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup, is a multi-national, multi-institutional consortium of physicians and scientists focused on improving cervical cancer outcomes worldwide by making cancer clinical trials available in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Standard operating procedures for participation in CCRN include a pre-qualifying questionnaire to evaluate clinical activities and research infrastructure, followed by a site visit. Once a site is approved, they may choose to participate in one of four currently accruing clinical trials. RESULTS: To date, 13 different CCRN site visits have been performed. Of these 13 sites visited, 10 have been approved as CCRN sites including Tata Memorial Hospital, India; Bangalore, India; Trivandrum, India; Ramathibodi, Thailand; Siriaj, Thailand; Pramongkutklao, Thailand; Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam; Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center; the Hertzen Moscow Cancer Research Institute; and the Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology. The four currently accruing clinical trials are TACO, OUTBACK, INTERLACE, and SHAPE. DISCUSSION: The CCRN has successfully enrolled eight sites in developing countries to participate in four randomized clinical trials. The primary objectives are to provide novel therapeutics to regions with the greatest need and to improve the validity and generalizability of clinical trial results by enrolling a diverse sample of patients.