Could different follow-up modalities play a role in the diagnosis of asymptomatic endometrial cancer relapses?: an Italian multicentric retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine current practice and to assess the value of routine follow-up procedures for endometrial cancer surveillance. To discuss whether such procedures are feasible and effective to identify asymptomatic recurrences and describe the pattern of relapse detected by procedures. METHODS: The records of 282 consecutive women with recurrent endometrial cancer treated from 1986 to 2005 were retrospectively collected in 8 Italian institutions. Primary disease, clinical history, and recurrence features and data were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five (12.4%) of 282 patients had recurrence in vaginal vault, 51 patients (18.0%) had recurrence in central pelvis, 14 patients (4.9%) had recurrence in pelvic wall, and 39 patients (13.8%) had recurrence in lymph nodes. One-hundred twenty-eight patients (45.3%) showed a distant relapse, whereas 15 patients (5.3%) developed both distant relapse and local relapse. The site of relapse influenced survival because the patients with vaginal vault recurrences lived significantly longer than the patients with recurrences in other sites. Eighty (28.4%) of the 282 patients became symptomatic and anticipated the scheduled visit, 37 (13.1 %) of the patients reported their symptoms during the follow-up meeting, and 165 (58.5 %) of the patients were asymptomatic and the diagnostic path was introduced by a planned visit or examination. Among the asymptomatic patients, the first procedure that led to further examinations was clinical visit alone for 60 (36.4%) of 165 patients, imaging for 103 patients (62.4%), and cytologic examination for 2 patients (1.2%). Symptoms at recurrence can predict survival: patients with an asymptomatic recurrence had a median survival time from relapse of 35 months versus 13 months if they had a symptomatic repetition (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up after endometrial cancer treatment varies in Italy. In this retrospective study, women with asymptomatic recurrence have shown a better clinical outcome compared with those with symptomatic relapse. The optimal approach is actually unknown, and guidelines comparing follow-up protocols have not been established. Prospective cost-effectiveness studies are needed.

Are surveillance procedures of clinical benefit for patients treated for ovarian cancer?: A retrospective Italian multicentric study.

The aim of this retrospective investigation was to assess the pattern of failures of 412 patients with recurrent ovarian cancer followed up with different surveillance protocols.Time to recurrence was less than 6 months in 98 women (23.8%), 6 to 12 months in 102 women (24.7%), and more than 12 months in 212 women (51.5%). Symptoms at relapse were referred by 81 women (19.7%). Among the 331 asymptomatic patients, the surveillance procedure that raised the suspect of recurrent disease was clinical examination in 49 (14.8%), imaging technique in 90 (27.2%), serum CA 125 in 77 (23.3%), and both serum CA 125 and imaging technique in 115 (34.7%). At univariate analysis, survival from initial diagnosis was related to stage (P = 0.004), residual disease after initial surgery (P < 0.0001), time to recurrence (P < 0.0001), site of relapse (P = 0.04), and treatment at recurrence (P < 0.0001), and survival after recurrence was related to stage (P = 0.01), residual disease (P < 0.0001), time to recurrence (P < 0.0001), and treatment at recurrence (P < 0.0001). Conversely, symptoms at recurrence had no prognostic relevance. Cox proportional hazards model showed that residual disease and time to recurrence were the only independent prognostic variables for both survival from initial diagnosis (P < 0.0001) and survival after recurrence (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, there was no survival difference between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the time of relapse, and therefore, the diagnostic anticipation allowed by a scheduled follow-up protocol did not seem to improve the clinical outcome of patients who ultimately developed recurrent disease.

Adjuvant treatment and survival in obese women with endometrial cancer: an international collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of patient weight on the frequency of surgical staging lymphadenectomy and pelvic radiation. Adverse effects, disease relapse, and survival outcomes were investigated. STUDY DESIGN: Records of 766 women who underwent surgery for presumed corpus-confined endometrial cancer were reviewed. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated to categorize women as obese (BMI, > or = 30 kg/m2) or nonobese (BMI, < 30 kg/m2). Radiation-related toxicity was scored retrospectively. Median duration of follow-up period was 38 months. Chi2, logistic regression, correlation, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox multivariate proportional hazards were used for analysis. RESULTS: Lymphadenectomy was completed as often in nonobese as obese women (P = .24). Adjuvant pelvic radiation treatment was administered more often in nonobese women (P = .01). Among 681 women with endometrioid histopathologic findings, 4-year cancer-related survival in obese women was 10% higher than all cause deaths, compared with 6% in nonobese women. CONCLUSION: Obesity was not a barrier to lymphadenectomy, but did influence adjuvant pelvic radiation use.

Variation in gynecological oncology follow-up practice: attributable to cancer centers or to patient characteristics? A Piedmont Regional Oncology Network Study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend minimalist follow-up, there is wide variability in gynecological oncology practice. The aims of this study were to describe between-center differences in the follow-up of endometrial, ovarian, and uterine cervical cancer; to identify the determinants of test prescription; to estimate the related costs; and to assess the weight of center habits and patient characteristics as sources of unexplained variability. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: The medical records of patients treated between August 2004 and July 2005 for gynecological malignancies and followed up for the detection of recurrent disease were retrospectively collected from 29 centers of the Piedmont Oncology Network. Multivariate multilevel analyses were performed to study the determinants of test prescription and costs. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on 351 patients (median follow-up: 578 days). The unexplained variability in computed tomography prescriptions (26%), ultrasound prescriptions (17%), and total cost of follow-up (15%) can be attributed to center habits, independenty of the clinical characteristics of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the unexplained variability in the follow-up for gynecological malignancies is attributable to different habits of centers belonging to a cancer network. These results prompted us to design a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare minimalist versus intensive follow-up programs in endometrial cancer.