The determination of the fetal D status from maternal plasma for decision making on Rh prophylaxis is feasible.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping might become a valuable tool in decision making on antenatal Rh prophylaxis, which is currently in routine practice for all D- pregnancies in several countries. This study provides a large-scale validation study of this technology to address questions concerning feasibility and applicability of its introduction into clinical routine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting RHD Exons 5 and 7 was applied for the detection of fetal-specific RHD sequences in maternal plasma. A total of 1113 women in 6 to 32 weeks (median, Week 25) of pregnancy were recruited. All of them were serologically typed as D- according to current German guidelines. DNA was extracted via a spin-column method and a novel automated approach using magnetic tips. Real-time PCR results were compared with postnatal serology and discrepancies further elucidated by DNA sequencing from a newborn's buccal swab. RESULTS: Sensitivities of fetal RHD genotyping were 99.7 percent (spin columns) and 99.8 percent (magnetic tips), thus comparable with serology (99.5%). The detection of weak D variants was more reliable by real-time PCR. Specificities of fetal RHD genotyping were 99.2 percent (spin columns) and 98.1 percent (magnetic tips), which is lower than serology (>99.7%). Automation achieved significantly higher yields of cell-free fetal DNA. CONCLUSION: This prospective clinical trial revealed that routine determination of the fetal D status from maternal plasma is feasible. Noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping can be considered as sensitive as the traditional postnatal serologic assay.

Statement of the Uterus Committee of the Gynaecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) on the PORTEC-3 study.

The data on the adjuvant therapy of endometrial cancer (EC) are inconsistent. Recent studies of this topic such as PORTEC-3, GOG-258 and GOG-249 investigated the value of adjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy and combined adjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by chemotherapy in patients with endometrial cancer and an increased risk of recurrence. With this statement, the Uterus Committee of the Gynaecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) wishes therefore to interpret the new data and discuss them against the background of the new S3 guideline "Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer".

A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable improvement in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, the optimization of efficacy and tolerability remains an important issue. Therefore, we performed a randomized, phase III non-inferiority trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin (PT) with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: A total of 798 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB-IV were randomly assigned to receive six courses of either PT or TC at 3-week intervals. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without progression at 2 years. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, response to treatment, quality of life, and overall and progression-free survival time. Quality of life was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, version 2.0. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The proportion of patients without progression at 2 years was not statistically significantly different between the two treatment arms (40.0% for PT versus 37.5% for TC, difference = 2.5%, one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] = - infinity to 8.2%). Median progression-free survival time in the TC arm (17.2 months, 95% CI = 15.2 to 19.3 months) and the PT arm (19.1 months, 95% CI = 16.7 to 21.5 months) were also not statistically significantly different; the same was true of median overall survival time (43.3 months, 95% CI = 37.2 to 47.8 months versus 44.1 months, 95% CI = 40.2 to 49.4 months, for the TC and PT arms, respectively). The TC regimen was associated with a higher frequency of hematologic toxicity, but a lower frequency of gastrointestinal and neurologic toxicity, than the PT regimen. Mean global quality-of-life scores at the end of treatment were statistically significantly better in the TC arm than in the PT arm (65.25 versus 51.97, respectively; difference = -13.28, 95% CI = -18.88 to -7.68). CONCLUSION: The TC regimen achieved comparable efficacy to the PT regimen but was associated with better tolerability and quality of life, and should, therefore, be considered as an important alternative for standard first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.