Variability of treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: How French multidisciplinary teams follow European guidelines?

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer is a global public health concern. Despite ESGO recommendations and FIGO classification changes, management of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) remains debated in France. Our study aimed to review LACC treatment practices and assess adherence to ESGO recommendations among different practitioners. METHODS: From February 2021 to August 2022, we conducted a survey among gynecologic oncology surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists practicing in France and managing LACC (FIGO stages IB3-IVA) according to the 2018 FIGO classification. We analyzed responses against the 2018 ESGO recommendations as a "gold standard." RESULTS: Among 115 respondents (56% radiation oncologists, 30% surgeons, 13% medical oncologists), 48.6% of gynecologic surgeons didn't perform para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) with significant radiologic pelvic involvement. PAL, when indicated by PET-CT, was more common in university hospitals (66.7% of surgeons). Surgeons in university hospitals also followed ESGO recommendations more closely. Overall, compliance with all ESGO recommendations was low: 5.7% of surgeons, 21.5% of radiation oncologists, and 60% of medical oncologists. Prophylactic para-aortic irradiation, per ESGO, was more frequent in comprehensive cancer centers (52% of radiation oncologists). CONCLUSION: Adherence to ESGO recommendations for LACC treatment appears low in France, particularly in surgery, with limited PAL in cases of lymph node negativity on PET-CT. However, these recommendations are more often followed by surgeons in university hospitals and radiation oncologists in cancer centers. Adherence to these recommendations may impact patient survival and warrants evaluation of care quality, justifying the organization of LACC management in expert centers.

French college of gynecologists and obstetricians (CNGOF) recommendations for clinical practice: Place of breast self-examination in screening strategies.

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the world. Numerous studies have shown that the risk of metastatic disease increases with tumor volume. In this context, it is useful to assess whether the regular practice of formal breast self-examination (BSE) as opposed to breast awareness has an impact on the number of cancers diagnosed, their stage, the treatments used and mortality. DESIGN: The Commission of Senology (CS) of the Collège National de Gynécologie et Obstétrique Français (CNGOF) respected and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. METHODS: The CS studied 16 questions individualizing four groups of women (general population, women aged over 75, high-risk women, and women previously treated for breast cancer). For each situation, it was determined whether the practice of BSE versus abstention from this examination led to detection of more breast cancers and/or recurrences and/or reduced treatment and/or increased survival. RESULTS: BSE should not be recommended for women in the general population, who otherwise benefit from clinical breast examination by practitioners from the age of 25, and from organized screening from 50 to 74 (strong recommendation). In the absence of data on the benefits of BSE in patients aged over 75, for those at high risk and those previously treated for breast cancer, the CS was unable to issue recommendations. Thus, if women in these categories wish to undergo BSE, information on the benefits and risks observed in the general population must be given, notably that BSE is associated with a higher number of referrals, biopsies, and a reduced quality of life.

[Place of breast self-examination in screening strategies. French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) recommendations for clinical practice]. / Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF. Place de l'auto-examen des seins dans les stratégies de dépistage.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in the world. In France, over 60,000 new cases are currently diagnosed, and 12,000 deaths are attributed to it annually. Numerous studies have shown that the risk of metastatic disease increases with tumor volume. In this context, it is useful to assess whether the regular practice of breast self-examination (BSE) has an impact on the number of cancers diagnosed, their stage, the treatments used and mortality. DESIGN: the CNGOF's Commission de Sénologie (CS), composed by 17 experts and 3 invited members, drew up these recommendations. No funding was provided for the development of these recommendations. The CS respected and followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based. METHODS: The CS studied 16 questions concerning BSE, individualizing four groups of women (general population, women aged over 75, high-risk women, and women previously treated for breast cancer). For each situation, it was determined whether the practice of BSE compared with abstention from this examination led to the detection of more breast cancers and/or recurrences and/or reduced treatment and/or increased survival. RESULTS: BSE should not be recommended for women in the general population, who otherwise benefit from a clinical breast examination (by the attending physician or gynecologist) from the age of 25, and from organized screening from 50 to 74 (strong recommendation). However, in the absence of data on the role of BSE in patients aged over 75, those at high risk of breast cancer and those previously treated for breast cancer, the CS was unable to issue recommendations. Thus, if women in these latter categories wish to undergo BSE, they must be given rigorous training in the technique, and information on the benefits and risks observed in the general population. Finally, the CS invites all women who detect a change or abnormality in their breasts to consult a healthcare professional without delay. CONCLUSION: BSE is not recommended for women in the general population. No recommendation can be established for women aged over 75, those at high risk of breast cancer and those previously treated for breast cancer.

Lymphocyte-to-C-Reactive Protein (LCR) Ratio Is Not Accurate to Predict Severity and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the ED.

Health care systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Lymphocytes and CRP have been reported as markers of interest. We chose to investigate the prognostic value of the LCR ratio as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). We conducted our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. A total of 1035 patients with COVID-19 were included in our study. Around three-quarters of them (76.2%) presented a moderate form of the disease, while the remaining quarter (23.8%) presented a severe form requiring admission to the ICU. At ED admission, the median LCR was significantly lower in the group presenting severe disease compared to that with moderate disease (versus 6.24 (3.24-12) versus 12.63 ((6.05-31.67)), p < 0.001). However, LCR was neither associated with disease severity (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99-1)), p = 0.476) nor mortality (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99-1)). In the ED, LCR, although modest, with a threshold of 12.63, was a predictive marker for severe forms of COVID-19.

Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) Is Not a Predicting Marker of Severity but of Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

(1) Introduction: In the present study, we investigate the prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate to severe coronavirus 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the emergency department (ED). (3) Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in our study. Neither lymphocytes, platelets or PLR were associated with disease severity. Lymphocyte count was significantly lower and PLR values were significantly higher in the group of patients who died, and both were associated with mortality in the univariate analysis (OR: 0.524, 95% CI: (0.336−0.815), p = 0.004) and (OR: 1.001, 95% CI: (1.000−1.001), p = 0.042), respectively. However, the only biological parameter significantly associated with mortality in the multivariate analysis was platelet count (OR: 0.996, 95% CI: (0.996−1.000), p = 0.027). The best PLR value for predicting mortality in COVID-19 was 356.6 (OR: 3.793, 95% CI: (1.946−7.394), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: A high PLR value is however associated with excess mortality.