Benefits of sentinel node detection in cervical cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely used technique in other gynaecological tumours but has not yet been implemented as the gold standard technique for nodal staging in cervical cancer. Since the majority of evidence is derived from retrospective studies, this review aims to summarize the most recent evidence on this relevant topic. RECENT FINDINGS: SLNB has demonstrated to be a well tolerated technique for lymph node staging in early-stage cervical cancer patients with promising future as exclusive lymph node assessment method avoiding full lymphadenectomy. Moreover, it allows ultrastaging and unfrequent drainage identification, which enables the detection of patients at a high risk of recurrence who would otherwise remain unnoticed. When compared with pelvic lymphadenectomy, SLNB is also associated with less intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially in terms of lymphedema formation. SUMMARY: The available evidence suggests that SLNB offers numerous advantages over the standard pelvic lymphadenectomy reducing morbidity rates and increasing diagnostic accuracy. Three ongoing prospective trials will likely answer the controversies over these questions.

Impact of sentinel node use in lymphedema formation among gynecologic cancer patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The most common surgical procedure associated with lymphedema formation is the regional lymphadenectomy. One of the advantages of sentinel node biopsy is the reduction of the risk of lymphedema formation. The purpose of this review is to collect and analyze the most relevant and recent evidence of the use of sentinel node biopsy and its implication on the development of postoperative lymphedema in gynecological cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: The current evidence of the use of sentinel node biopsy in cervical cancer to reduce lymphedema is heterogeneous and more data is needed to establish its role.Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer is a staging procedure with lower surgical complications, as well as lymphedema formation; while the results of prospective trials evaluating its impact on quality of life are still lacking.Sentinel lymph node biopsy in vulvar cancer minimizes the need for extensive dissection and reduces the incidence of complications associated with overharvesting of lymph nodes such as lymphedema without compromising oncological outcomes. SUMMARY: The prevalence of lymphedema in gynecological cancer varies based on the surgical treatment or additional therapies applied. Over the past years, one of the most important surgical modifications to decrease lymphedema formation has been implementation of sentinel lymph node technique mainly in vulvar cancer patients.

Survival in pregnancy-associated breast cancer patients compared to non-pregnant controls.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is a rare entity whose prognosis has previously been studied and is subject to controversy. METHODS: Survival of patients with PABC diagnosed between 2009 and 2021 with breast cancer during pregnancy or until 1 year after childbirth was compared with non-pregnant patients with breast cancer from the same period at La Paz University Hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival between the groups, adjusting for grade and pathologic stage. RESULTS: Among the 89 included patients with breast cancer, 34 were diagnosed during pregnancy, and 55 were not pregnant. The pregnant patients were more likely to have grade 3 tumors (61.3% vs 37%, p = 0.023) and an advanced stage (pathologic stage III-IV: 44.1% vs 17.6%, p = 0.008). Median follow-up was 47 months for the pregnant group and 46 months for the control group. After adjustments for tumor grade and pathologic stage, OS was comparable between the groups (HR 2.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 6.79; P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of women diagnosed with PABC is comparable to young non-pregnant controls. However, it should be taken into account that PABC has a more aggressive phenotype.

Sentinel lymph node pathological ultrastaging: Final outcome of the Sentix prospective international study in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcome of SLN staging in the SENTIX international prospective trial of SLN biopsy in patients with cervical cancer with an intensive ultrastaging protocol and central quality control and to evaluate how the intensity of pathological assessment correlates with metastatic detection rate in SLNs. METHODS: Eligible were patients with stages T1a1/LVSI+ to T1b2 (<4 cm, ≤2 cm for fertility sparing), common tumor types, no suspicious lymph nodes on imaging, and bilateral SLN detection. SLNs were examined intraoperatively and processed by an intensive protocol for ultrastaging (paraffin blocks sectioned completely in 150-µm intervals/levels). SLNs from each site were submitted for central quality control. RESULTS: In the SENTIX SLN study, 647 out of 733 enrolled patients underwent SLN ultrastaging, identifying 12.5% (81/647) with node positive, N1 cases. Intraoperative detection revealed metastases in 56.8% (46/81) of these cases, categorized into macrometastases (83.7%), micrometastases (26.3%), and isolated tumor cells (9.1%). Ultrastaging identified additional metastatic involvement in 43.2% (35/81) of patients, with detailed sectioning revealing metastases (MAC/MIC) at first level in 20 cases (24.7%), at levels 2-4 in 9 cases (11.1%), and at level ≥5 in 6 cases (7.4%). CONCLUSION: SLN ultrastaging detects additional 43% of N1 (MAC/MIC) in patients with negative LNs by imaging and intraoperative pathological assessment. The detection rate of positive SLN correlates with the intensity (number of levels) of ultrastaging. Examination of four levels from paraffin blocks, which detects >90% of patients with N1, is a reasonable compromise for an international standard for ultrastaging. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT02494063 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Consensus on surgical technique for sentinel lymph node dissection in cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus on the surgical technique for sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in cervical cancer. METHODS: A 26 question survey was emailed to international expert gynecological oncology surgeons. A two-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the questions were amended and a second round, along with semistructured interviews was performed. Consensus was defined using a 70% cut-off for agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 38 (65.8%) experts responded to the first and second rounds of the online survey. Agreement ≥70% was reached for 13 (50.0%) questions in the first round and for 15 (57.7%) in the final round. Consensus agreement identified 15 recommended, three optional, and five not recommended steps. Experts agreed on the following recommended procedures: use of indocyanine green as a tracer; superficial (with or without deep) injection at 3 and 9 o'clock; injection at the margins of uninvolved mucosa avoiding vaginal fornices; grasping the cervix with forceps only in part of the cervix is free of tumor; use of a minimally invasive approach for SLN biopsy in the case of simple trachelectomy/conization; identification of the ureter, obliterated umbilical artery, and external iliac vessels before SLN excision; commencing the dissection at the level of the uterine artery and continuing laterally; and completing dissection in one hemi-pelvis before proceeding to the contralateral side. Consensus was also reached in recommending against injection at 6 and 12 o'clock, and injection directly into the tumor in cases of the tumor completely replacing the cervix; against removal of nodes through port without protective maneuvers; absence of an ultrastaging protocol; and against modifying tracer concentration at the time of re-injection after mapping failure. CONCLUSION: Recommended, optional, and not recommended steps of SLN dissection in cervical cancer have been identified based on consensus among international experts. These represent a surgical guide that may be used by surgeons in clinical trials and for quality assurance in routine practice.

Current limits of conservative treatment in ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fertility-sparing surgery in ovarian cancer is an increasing need in gynecology-oncology clinical practice because of the frequent childbearing delay in developed countries. As the evidence in literature is based on observational studies, this review focuses on summarizing the most recent and relevant evidence for the conservative management of young patients with ovarian cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Staging surgery is mandatory in epithelial ovarian tumors. In sex cord-stromal tumors, fertility-sparing surgery is only recommended in FIGO stage IA. Due to its good prognosis, conservative treatment is possible in some cases of advanced disease of germ cell tumors and borderline tumors. Cystectomy is a reasonable option in serous borderline tumors but is not recommended in other tumor subtypes. Successful conception rates after fertility-sparing surgery ranges from 30 to 60%. SUMMARY: Fertility-sparing surgery is a well tolerated option in young women with early-stage ovarian cancer with acceptable reproductive outcomes.

Impact of Hospital Case Volume on Uterine Sarcoma Prognosis: SARCUT Study Subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: High-complexity and low-prevalence procedures benefit from treatment by referral centers. The volume of cases necessary to maintain high training in the treatment of gynecologic sarcoma is currently unknown. This study aimed to determine differences in survival and recurrence as a function of the volume of patients treated per center. METHODS: The multicentric cross-sectional SARComa of the Uterus (SARCUT) study retrospectively collected cases of uterine sarcomas from 44 centers in Europe from January 2001 to December 2007. The survival of patients treated in high case-volume (HighCV) centers was compared with the survival of patients treated in low case-volume (LowCV) centers. RESULTS: The study enrolled 966 patients: 753 in the LowCV group and 213 in the HighCV. Overall survival (OS) was 117 months, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 126 months. The difference was significant (respectively p = 0.0003 and 0.0004, log rank). After adjustment for other confounding factors, the remaining significant factors were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.05), histology (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34), extrauterine involvement (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.24-2.10) and persistent disease after treatment (HR, 3.22; 95% CI, 2.49-4.18). The cytoreduction performed was significantly associated with the CSS and OS in both groups. The log rank for surgical cytoreduction was a p value lower than 0.0001 for OS, lower than 0.0001 for the LowCV centers, and 0.0032 for the HighCV centers. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for patients with uterine sarcoma is directly related to complete tumor cytoreduction, histologic type, and FIGO stage, with significant differences between low and high case-volume centers. Patients with uterine sarcomas should be centralized in HighCV centers to improve their oncologic outcomes.

Lymph node dissection in uterine leiomyosarcomas: A matched-pair study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the lymph node dissection (LND) in the disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of the women treated surgically of uterine leiomyosarcoma (ULMS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentric retrospective study was conducted among European countries collecting patients diagnosed of uterine sarcoma (SARcoma of the UTerus - SARCUT study). A total of 390 ULMS were selected for the present study to compare patients who underwent LND and those who did not. A further matched-pair subanalysis identified 116 women, 58 pairs (58 with LND and 58 without it) comparable in age, tumor size, surgical procedures, extrauterine disease and adjuvant treatment. Demographic data, pathology results and follow-up were abstracted from medical records and analyzed. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the 390 patients, the 5-year DFS was significantly higher in no-LDN group comparing to the LDN group (57.7% vs. 33.0%; HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.56; p = 0.007), but not the 5-year OS (64.6% vs. 64.3%; HR 1,10 95% CI 0,77-1,79; p = 0.704). In the matched-pair subanalysis, there were no statistical differences between the study groups. The 5- year DFS was 50.5% in the no-LND and 33.0% in the LND group (HR 1.38; 95% CI 0,83-2.31; p = 0,218) and the 5-year OS was 59.7% and 64.3% respectively (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0,45-1,49; p = 0,509). CONCLUSIONS: LND performed in women diagnosed of ULMS have no impact neither in the disease-free nor in the overall survival compared to patients without LDN in a complete homogeneous group.

Stratification of lymph node metastases as macrometastases, micrometastases, or isolated tumor cells has no clinical implication in patients with cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN project.

BACKGROUND: In cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01-1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges. RESULTS: LN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.

Role of adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk cervical cancer patients - Subanalyses of the SCCAN study.

OBJECTIVE: The "intermediate-risk" (IR) group of early-stage cervical cancer patients is characterized by negative pelvic lymph nodes and a combination of tumor-related prognostic risk factors such as tumor size ≥2 cm, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and deep stromal invasion. However, the role of adjuvant treatment in these patients remains controversial. We investigated whether adjuvant (chemo)radiation is associated with a survival benefit after radical surgery in patients with IR cervical cancer. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients with IR cervical cancer (tumor size 2-4 cm plus LVSI OR tumor size >4 cm; N0; no parametrial invasion; clear surgical margins) who underwent primary curative-intent surgery between 2007 and 2016 and were retrospectively registered in the international multicenter Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) study. RESULTS: Of 692 analyzed patients, 274 (39.6%) received no adjuvant treatment (AT-) and 418 (60.4%) received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (AT+). The 5-year disease-free survival (83.2% and 80.3%; PDFS = 0.365) and overall survival (88.7% and 89.0%; POS = 0.281) were not significantly different between the AT- and AT+ groups, respectively. Adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit after adjusting for confounding factors by case-control propensity score matching or in subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥4 cm and <4 cm. In univariable analysis, adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was not identified as a prognostic factor in any of the subgroups (full cohort: PDFS = 0.365; POS = 0.282). CONCLUSION: Among patients with IR early-stage cervical cancer, radical surgery alone achieved equal disease-free and overall survival rates to those achieved by combining radical surgery with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy.

Survival associated with extent of radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a subanalysis of the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend tailoring the radicality of hysterectomy according to the known preoperative tumor characteristics in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether increased radicality had an effect on 5-year disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The secondary aims were 5-year overall survival and pattern of recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective study from the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative cohort. Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1 and IIA1 who underwent open type B/C1/C2 radical hysterectomy according to Querleu-Morrow classification between January 2007 and December 2016, who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who had negative lymph nodes and free surgical margins at final histology, were included. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Patients were stratified according to pathologic tumor diameter. Propensity score match analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 1257 patients were included. Of note, 883 patients (70.2%) underwent nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, and 374 patients (29.8%) underwent non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Baseline differences between the study groups were found for tumor stage and diameter (higher use of non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm or with vaginal involvement; P<.0001). The use of adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 27.3% vs 28.6%, respectively (P=.63). Five-year disease-free survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 90.1% (95% confidence interval, 87.9-92.2) vs 93.8% (95% confidence interval, 91.1-96.5), respectively (P=.047). Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was independently associated with better disease-free survival at multivariable analysis performed on the entire cohort (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.81; P=.004). Furthermore, 5-year overall survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 95.7% (95% confidence interval, 94.1-97.2) vs non-nerve-sparing 96.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.3-98.7), respectively (P=.78). In patients with a tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 94.7% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 96.2% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.22). In patients with tumors between 21 and 40 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 90.3% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 83.1% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.016) (no significant difference in the rate of adjuvant treatment in this subgroup, P=.47). This was confirmed after propensity match score analysis (balancing the 2 study groups). The pattern of recurrence in the propensity-matched population did not demonstrate any difference (P=.70). CONCLUSION: For tumors ≤20 mm, no survival difference was found with more radical hysterectomy. For tumors between 21 and 40 mm, a more radical hysterectomy was associated with improved 5-year disease-free survival. No difference in the pattern of recurrence according to the extent of radicality was observed. Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was associated with better 5-year disease-free survival than nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy after propensity score match analysis.

Avascular spaces in radical hysterectomy.

The most common cancer in women worldwide is cervical cancer. For early-stage disease the standard treatment is radical hysterectomy. One of the main issues faced by surgeons performing a radical hysterectomy is the wide variation in the terminology used to define the procedure and the nomenclature used to describe the anatomical spaces critical to the success of the surgery. The aim of this review was to synthesize currently used anatomical landmarks with relation to surgical avascular spaces for the performance of radical hysterectomy.A computer-based comprehensive review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and SciSearch databases, as well as National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology guidelines, was performed. With all relevant data collected, and previous anatomical studies during surgeries and on cadavers performed by authors, a manuscript of the definition of avascular spaces, methods of dissection, and anatomical limits was prepared.Avascular pelvic spaces developed during radical hysterectomy, such as the paravesical, pararectal, ureter tunnel, and paravaginal, were considered and included in the manuscript. A clear definition of avascular spaces may aid a better understanding of the anatomical aspects of the radical hysterectomy. It could improve surgeon knowledge of the structures that need to be preserved and those that need to be resected during a radical hysterectomy. Additionally, the detailed exposure of anatomical boundaries will facilitate the appropriate tailored radicality depending on the risk factors of the disease. Moreover, knowledge of these spaces could make pelvic surgery safer and easier for other types of gynecological and non-gynecological procedures.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma, consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive information on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment (patient selection, tumor clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, special issues) in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts from across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified by a systematic search, was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

ESGO/ESTRO quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) has previously defined and established a list of quality indicators for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. As a continuation of this effort to improve overall quality of care for cervical cancer patients across all aspects, ESGO and the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) initiated the development of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice by giving to practitioners and administrators a quantitative basis to improve care and organizational processes, notably for recognition of the increased complexity of modern external radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques. METHODS: Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for identification of potential quality indicators and documentation of scientific evidence, consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians (n=99). RESULTS: Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are detailed to define how the quality indicators will be measured in practice. Targets were also defined for specifying the level which each unit or center should be aiming to achieve. Nineteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were defined. Quality indicators 1-6 are general requirements related to pretreatment workup, time to treatment, upfront radiation therapy, and overall management, including active participation in clinical research and the decision making process within a structured multidisciplinary team. Quality indicators 7-17 are related to treatment indicators. Quality indicators 18 and 19 are related to patient outcomes. DISCUSSION: This set of quality indicators is a major instrument to standardize the quality of radiation therapy in cervical cancer. A scoring system combining surgical and radiotherapeutic quality indicators will be developed within an envisaged future ESGO accreditation process for the overall management of cervical cancer, in an effort to support institutional and governmental quality assurance programs.

Improving Endometrial cancer assessment by combining the new techniqUe of GENomic profiling with surgical Extra uterIne disEase assessment (EUGENIE).

BACKGROUND: The molecular classification of endometrial cancer revolutionized our knowledge of its biology but so far has not affected our surgical approach. The exact risk of extra-uterine metastasis and hence the type of surgical staging for each of the four molecular subgroups are currently unknown. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between molecular classification and disease stage. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Each endometrial cancer molecular subgroup has a specific pattern of spread and this pattern of spread could guide the extent of surgical staging. TRIAL DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter study MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Participants eligible for inclusion in this study must meet all the following criteria: women ≥18 years with primary endometrial cancer, any histology and stage. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: Number and site of metastasis in each endometrial cancer molecular subgroup. SAMPLE SIZE: 1000 patients will be enrolled. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The trial will last 6 years: 4 years of accrual, and 2 years of follow-up of all patients. Results on staging and oncological outcomes are expected in 2027 and 2029, respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been accepted by UZ Leuven Ethical Committee. Belg. Reg. nr: B3222022000997.

Prognostic factors in young women with epithelial ovarian cancer: the Young Ovarian Cancer-Care (YOC-Care) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine oncological outcomes and to identify prognostic factors in women aged <45 years with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed of patients treated for epithelial ovarian cancer aged <45 years between January 2010 and December 2019. RESULTS: A total of 998 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer from 55 different institutions in Spain were collected. The median age of the study population was 40.8 years (range 35.6-43.4). The grouped International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage distribution was 508 (50.9%) patients in initial stages (I and II) and 490 (49.1%) with advanced stages (III and IV). Three hundred and twenty-five (32.6%) patients presented with recurrent disease after a median follow-up of 33.1 months (range 16.1-66.4). The type of staging surgery (incomplete vs complete), type of initial treatment modality (primary cytoreduction vs interval surgery), and amount of residual disease were all significantly associated with overall survival. Tumor rupture was noted in 288 (27.9%) cases, but it was not associated with oncologic outcomes (p=0.11 for overall survival). In the multivariate analysis, the response based on radiological findings (HR 3.24, 95% CI 2.14 to 4.91 for partial response; HR 6.93, 95% CI 4.79 to 10.04 for progression), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.94), and FIGO stage (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.02) were identified as independent prognostic factors associated with worse oncologic outcomes (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The partial and progression radiology-based response after chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and advanced FIGO stage are independent prognostic factors associated with worse oncological outcomes in women aged <45 years with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Oncological outcomes among young women with non-epithelial ovarian cancer: the YOC-Care study (Young Ovarian Cancer - Care).

OBJECTIVE: To determine oncological outcomes and associated prognostic factors in women younger than 45 years diagnosed with non-epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter Spanish study was performed including women with non-epithelial ovarian cancer younger than 45 years between January 2010 and December 2019. All types of treatments and stages at diagnosis with at least 12 months of follow-up were collected. Women with missing data, epithelial cancers, borderline or Krukenberg tumors, and benign histology, as well as patients with previous or concomitant cancer, were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were included in this study. The mean±SD age was 31.45±7.45 years. Histology subtypes were divided into germ cell (n=104, 69.3%), sex-cord (n=41, 27.3%), and other stromal tumors (n=5, 3.3%). Median follow-up time was 58.6 (range: 31.10-81.91) months. Nineteen (12.6%) patients presented with recurrent disease with a median time to recurrence of 19 (range: 6-76) months. Progression-free survival and overall survival did not significantly differ among histology subtypes (p=0.09 and 0.26, respectively) and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (I-II vs III-IV) with p=0.08 and p=0.67, respectively. Univariate analysis identified sex-cord histology with the lowest progression-free survival. Multivariate analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) (HR=1.01; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01) and sex-cord histology (HR=3.6; 95% CI 1.17 to 10.9) remained important independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. Independent prognostic factors for overall survival were BMI (HR=1.01; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01) and residual disease (HR=7.16; 95% CI 1.39 to 36.97). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that BMI, residual disease, and sex-cord histology were prognostic factors associated with worse oncological outcomes in women younger than 45 years diagnosed with non-epithelial ovarian cancers. Even though the identification of prognostic factors is relevant to identify high-risk patients and guide adjuvant treatment, larger studies with international collaboration are essential to clarify oncological risk factors in this rare disease.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Vulvar Cancer - Update 2023.

BACKGROUND: As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) first published in 2017 evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with vulvar cancer. OBJECTIVE: To update the ESGO guidelines based on the new evidence addressing the management of vulvar cancer and to cover new topics in order to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of vulvar cancer. METHODS: The ESGO Council nominated an international development group comprised of practicing clinicians who provide care to vulvar cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertize in clinical care and research, national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (18 experts across Europe). To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, new data identified from a systematic search were reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 206 international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. RESULTS: The updated guidelines cover comprehensively diagnosis and referral, staging, pathology, pre-operative investigations, surgical management (local treatment, groin treatment, sentinel lymph node procedure, reconstructive surgery), (chemo)radiotherapy, systemic treatment, treatment of recurrent disease (vulvar, inguinal, pelvic, and distant recurrences), and follow-up. Management algorithms are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer - Update 2023.

In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

Prognostic factors in patients with uterine sarcoma: the SARCUT study.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine sarcomas are a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies that include different histological sub-types. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the impact of the different prognostic factors on overall survival and disease-free survival of patients with uterine sarcoma. METHODS: This international multicenter retrospective study included 683 patients diagnosed with uterine sarcoma at 46 different institutions between January 2001 and December 2007. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival for leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, undifferentiated sarcoma, and adenosarcoma was 65.3%, 78.3%, 52.4%, and 89.5%, respectively, and the 5-year disease-free survival was 54.3%, 68.1%, 40.3%, and 85.3%, respectively. The 10-year overall survival for leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, undifferentiated sarcoma and adenosarcoma was 52.6%, 64.8%, 52.4%, and 79.5%, respectively, and the 10-year disease-free survival was 44.7%, 53.3%, 40.3%, and 77.5%, respectively. The most significant factor associated with overall survival in all types of sarcoma except for adenosarcoma was the presence of residual disease after primary treatment. In adenosarcoma, disease stage at diagnosis was the most important factor (hazard ratio 17.7; 95% CI 2.86 to 109.93). CONCLUSION: Incomplete cytoreduction, tumor persistence, advanced stage, extra-uterine and tumor margin involvement, and the presence of necrosis were relevant prognostic factors significantly affecting overall survival in uterine sarcoma. The presence of lymph vascular space involvement and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher risk of relapse.