Endocrine treatment of high grade serous ovarian carcinoma; quantification of efficacy and identification of response predictors.

OBJECTIVES: The role of endocrine therapy (ET) in high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) is poorly defined due to the lack of phase III data and significant heterogeneity of clinical trials performed. In this study, we sought to identify predictive factors of endocrine sensitivity in HGSOC. METHODS: HGSOC patients who received at least four weeks of ET for relapsed disease following one line of chemotherapy at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre were identified. Exclusion criteria were use of endocrine therapy as maintenance therapy or of unknown duration. Duration of therapy and best CA125 response as per modified GCIG criteria were recorded. Oestrogen receptor (ER) histoscore, treatment free interval, prior lines of chemotherapy, and type of ET were evaluated as predictive factors. RESULTS: Of 431 patients identified, 269 were eligible (77.0% letrozole, 18.6% tamoxifen, 2.2% megesterol acetate, 2.2% other). The median duration of therapy was 126 days (range 28-1427 days). 32.7% remained on ET for ≥180 days and 14.1% for ≥365 days. The CA125 response and clinical benefit rates (response or stable disease) were 8.1% and 40.1% respectively. ER histoscore >200 (P = 0.0016) and a treatment free interval of ≥180 days (P < 0.0001) were independent predictive factors upon multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ET should be considered as a viable strategy to defer subsequent chemotherapy for relapsed HGSOC. Patients with an ER histoscore >200 and a treatment free interval of ≥180 days are most likely to derive benefit.

Tenosynovial giant cell tumor: a case report.

BACKGROUND: This case reports the synchronous diagnosis of two rare unrelated diseases; leiomyosarcoma and tenosynovial giant cell tumor of the knee. It focuses on the challenges of diagnosing tenosynovial giant cell tumor, including cognitive biases in clinical medicine that delay diagnosis. It also demonstrates the pathogenic etiology of tenosynovial giant cell tumor, evidenced by the transient deterioration of the patients' knee symptoms following the administration of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given as part of the chemotherapeutic regime for leiomyosarcoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 37-year-old Caucasian man presented with a left groin lump and left knee pain with swelling and locking. Investigations including positron emission tomography-computed tomography and biopsy revealed leiomyosarcoma in a lymph node likely related to the spermatic cord, with high-grade uptake in the left knee that was presumed to be the primary site. His knee symptoms temporarily worsened each time granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was administered with each cycle of chemotherapy for leiomyosarcoma to help combat myelosuppressive toxicity. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy of the knee confirmed a tenosynovial giant cell tumor. His knee symptoms relating to the tenosynovial giant cell tumor improved following the completion of his leiomyosarcoma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tenosynovial giant cell tumor remains a diagnostic challenge. We discuss the key clinical features and investigations that aid prompt diagnosis. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for soft tissue sarcoma have recently been updated to include the pharmacological management of tenosynovial giant cell tumor. Our case discussion provides an up-to-date review of the evidence for optimal management of patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor, with a particular focus on novel pharmacological options that exploit underlying pathogenesis.