Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in combination with surgery for ovarian carcinosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian carcinosarcoma, also known as malignant mixed Mullerian tumour, is a rare malignant gynaecological tumour constituting about 1% or less of all ovarian cancers. In over 80% of cases, there is extra-ovarian intra-abdominal spread at diagnosis. The primary treatment has traditionally been surgical cytoreduction followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Regimes have included cisplatin alone; a combination of doxorubicin, ifosfamide, dacarbazine, cyclophosphamide, taxol; and various other combinations. The effectiveness of these various regimens appears to be mixed. Therefore, there is a need to clarify if there is an optimum neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy after surgical cytoreduction for this rare tumour. Also, it is important to address quality of life (QoL) issues related to treatment, particularly toxicity, as the overall prognosis appears to be poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of various adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy options or chemotherapy alone in combination with surgery in the management of ovarian carcinosarcoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2012. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, or chemotherapy alone, in women with ovarian carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Mullerian sarcoma of the ovary). We also reviewed non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion in the absence of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found and therefore no data were analysed. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 297 unique references of which all were excluded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to inform decisions about neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens, or chemotherapy alone, for women with ovarian carcinosarcoma. Ideally, an RCT that is multicentre or multinational, or well designed non-randomised studies that use multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances, are needed to compare treatment modalities and improve current knowledge. Further research in genetic and molecular signalling pathways might improve understanding of this tumour subtype.

Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia--the need for auditable measures of management.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical excision is currently the standard treatment for vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). To date it has proved difficult to evaluate the management of VIN in reported series due to heterogeneity in datasets. The objective of this study was to justify standardised data presentation to permit comparison between series and facilitate determination of an optimal strategy for management of VIN. We propose auditable indicators of performance to benchmark management and outcomes. This may also enable definition of a surgical control arm for future novel therapy studies. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre (NGOC), UK on women with proven VIN diagnosed between 1989 and 2004 who attended the vulvar review clinic are presented and analysed alongside three large retrospective series by Jones et al. [Jones RW, Rowan DM, Stewart AW. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: aspects of the natural history and outcome in 405 women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106(6):1319-26], Herod et al. [Herod JJ, Shafi MI, Rollason TP, Jordan JA, Luesley DM. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: long term follow up of treated and untreated women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103(5):446-52], McNally et al. [McNally OM, Mulvany NJ, Pagano R, Quinn MA, Rome RM. VIN 3: a clinicopathologic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2002;12(5):490-5] against proposed performance indicators to illustrate the deficiencies in current data presentation. RESULTS: Demographics and indicators such as degree of pathological expertise, definition of early stromal invasion and use of International Society for the study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) classification were usually well documented. The description of lesions including size and focality were not always documented, nor the proportion examined by co-specialists. Numbers of primary treatments were well described but the indications for treatment, completeness of excision and VIN subclassification were not. Subsequent surgical treatments were inconsistently reported including the pathological details and intervals between treatments. Symptomatology was not well reported. Information on follow-up intervals and duration of follow-up with an indication of patient compliance was inadequate. Outcome data on recurrence of VIN and progression to carcinoma (early stromal invasion or frankly invasive carcinoma) were included in all series. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on the ideal management of VIN or evaluation of new strategies will prove impossible without standardised data presentation. We propose a number of performance indicators that will facilitate evaluation of future studies or series against the current benchmark of surgical treatment for VIN.

Pelvic malignant hemangiopericytoma mimicking an ovarian neoplasm; a case report.

BACKGROUND: Malignant hemangiopericytoma (MHPC) is a rare vascular tumor and has been reported to occur in the musculature of the extremities, retroperitoneum and pelvis. Omental hemangiopericytomas (HPCs) are extremely rare. Synovial sarcomas and solitary fibrous tumors share histologic features with HPCs, causing diagnostic difficulties. Immunohistochemistry is essential for the diagnosis. CASE: A 74-year-old woman presented with an abdominopelvic mass. A malignant ovarian tumor was suspected on clinical features, ultrasound and computed tomography. Staging laparotomy revealed a large, vascular tumor adherent to loops of small bowel, colon, cecum and appendix, but the ovaries and uterus were normal. The tumor was completely removed after extensive dissection. Histopathology and detailed immunohistochemistry established the diagnosis of a malignant hemangiopericytoma arising from the omentum. The patient developed recurrent subacute bowel obstruction and died 4 months after the initial diagnosis. CONCLUSION: MHPCs are rare tumors and not likely to be diagnosed preoperatively. Treatment is therefore individualized and based on the findings at laparotomy. Some tumors, such as the one described here, exhibit very aggressive behavior.