Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life cancer survivorship core questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental, and social health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. In this phase III study, we pretested the provisional core questionnaire (QLQ-SURV111) and aimed to identify essential and optional scales. METHODS: We pretested the QLQ-SURV111 in 492 cancer survivors from 17 countries with one of 11 cancer diagnoses. We applied the EORTC QLG decision rules and employed factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to assess and, where necessary, modify the hypothesized questionnaire scales. We calculated correlations between the survivorship scales and the QLQ-C30 summary score and carried out a Delphi survey among healthcare professionals, patient representatives, and cancer researchers to distinguish between essential and optional scales. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of the sample was male, mean age was 60 years, and, on average, time since completion of treatment was 3.8 years. Eleven items were excluded, resulting in the QLQ-SURV100, with 12 functional and 9 symptom scales, a symptom checklist, 4 single items, and 10 conditional items. The essential survivorship scales consist of 73 items. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-SURV100 has been developed to assess comprehensively the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors. It includes essential and optional scales and will be validated further in an international phase IV study. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The availability of this questionnaire will facilitate a standardized and robust assessment of the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors.

Debulking hysterectomy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy for FIGO stage (2019) IB3/II cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: With an estimated 570,000 new cases reported globally in 2018, and increasing numbers of new cases in countries without established human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide. The majority of global disease burden (around 85%) is in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with estimates of cervical cancer being the second most common cancer in women in such regions. As it commonly affects younger women, cervical cancer has the greatest impact on years of life lost (YLL) and adverse socioeconomic outcomes compared to all other cancers in women. Management of cervical cancer depends on tumour stage. Radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy is the standard primary treatment modality for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2019) 1B1 to 1B3 disease. However, for larger primary tumours, radical hysterectomy is less commonly recommended. This is mainly due to a high incidence of unfavourable histopathological parameters, which require adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (chemotherapy given with radiotherapy treatment). CCRT is the standard of care and is widely used as first-line treatment for cervical cancer considered to be not curable with surgery alone (i.e.those with locally advanced disease). However, a sizable cohort of women managed with primary CCRT will have residual disease within the cervix following treatment. Debulking' hysterectomy to remove (debulk) the primary tumour in locally advanced disease, prior to CCRT, may be an alternative management strategy, avoiding the potential need for surgery for residual cervical disease following CCRT, which may be more extensive, or have increased morbidity due to CCRT. However, this strategy may subject more women to unnecessary surgery and its inherent risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and harms of debulking hysterectomy (simple or radical) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2021) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2021). We also searched other registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists up to 12 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for locally advanced FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical malignancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied Cochrane methodology, with two review authors independently assessing whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We planned to apply standard Cochrane methodological procedures to analyse data and risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. We did not identify any studies assessing the validity of debulking hysterectomy for these women.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer.

Etiology of Vaginal/Cervical Discharge Syndrome: Analysis of Data from a Referral Laboratory in Eastern India.

CONTEXT: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and reproductive tract infections (RTIs) constitute important public health problem worldwide. Syndromic diagnosis of vaginal/cervical discharge (VCD) is often inaccurate leading to over- or under-treatment. AIMS: This study aimed to ascertain the laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of VCD and their relative frequency in a group of patients presenting to a STI clinic in eastern India and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of 5301 consecutive patients with VCD were analyzed for etiological diagnosis and the findings were compared with laboratory data of 3110 asymptomatic cases. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of clinical diagnosis of vaginal discharge syndrome were obtained considering the results of the laboratory diagnosis as gold standard. The strength of agreement was computed using Kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of 5301 cases of VCD, 90.83% had STI/RTIs. The most prevalent infection was trichomoniasis (35.23%), followed by bacterial vaginosis (33.05%) and vulvovaginal candidiasis (19.67%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of vaginal discharge as an indicator of STI/RTI were 85.5%, 99.0%, 99.3%, and 80%, respectively, with agreement of 90.49% and kappa value of 0.8, indicating "almost perfect" agreement. Many cases with VCD also suffered from other STIs such as herpes simplex virus-2, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency syndrome, and syphilis and some asymptomatic cases suffered from one or more STIs. CONCLUSIONS: All patients with VCD with high-risk behavior should preferably undergo laboratory evaluation of the VCD syndrome to avoid over- or under-treatment.

Medical and Surgical Treatments for Usual-Type Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Which interventions are the most effective and tolerable for treating usual-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia? BOTTOM LINE: Provided cancer is not suspected, usual-type vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia treatment, including medical and surgical options, can be individualized to take into account the site, extent of disease, and a woman's preferences, with a commitment to long-term follow-up.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of usual-type vulval intraepithelial neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Usual-type vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (uVIN) is a pre-cancerous condition of the vulval skin. Also known as high-grade VIN, VIN 2/3 or high-grade vulval squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), uVIN is associated with high-risk subtype human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. The condition causes distressing vulval symptoms in the majority of affected women and may progress to vulval cancer, therefore is usually actively managed. There is no consensus on the optimal management of uVIN. High morbidity and recurrence rates associated with surgical treatments make less invasive treatments highly desirable. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions are the most effective, safe and tolerable for treating women with uVIN. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 8 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 1 September 2015). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed medical and surgical interventions in women with uVIN. If no RCTs were available, we included non-randomised studies (NRSs) with concurrent comparison groups that controlled for baseline case mix in multivariate analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane methodology with two review authors independently extracting data and assessing risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised data in meta-analyses using random-effects methods. Network meta-analysis was not possible due to insufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs involving 327 women and five NRSs involving 648 women. The condition was variously named by investigators as uVIN, VIN2/3 or high-grade VIN. Five RCTs evaluated medical treatments (imiquimod, cidofovir, indole-3 carbinol), and six studies (one RCT and five NRSs) evaluated surgical treatments or photodynamic therapy. We judged two RCTs and four NRSs to be at a high or unclear risk of bias; we considered the others at relatively low risk of bias. Types of outcome measures reported in NRSs varied and we were unable to pool NRS data. Medical interventions: Topical imiquimod was more effective than placebo in achieving a response (complete or partial) to treatment at five to six months post-randomisation (three RCTs, 104 women; risk ratio (RR) 11.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.21 to 44.51; high-quality evidence). At five to six months, a complete response occurred in 36/62 (58%) and 0/42 (0%) women in the imiquimod and placebo groups, respectively (RR 14.40, 95% CI 2.97 to 69.80). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that the complete response was sustained at one year (one RCT, nine complete responses out of 52 women (38%)) and beyond, particularly in women with smaller VIN lesions. Histologically confirmed complete response rates with imiquimod versus cidofovir at six months were 45% (41/91) and 46% (41/89), respectively (one RCT, 180 women; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37; moderate-quality evidence). Twelve-month data from this trial are awaited; however, interim findings suggested that complete responses were sustained at 12 months. Only one trial reported vulval cancer at one year (1/24 and 2/23 in imiquimod and placebo groups, respectively). Adverse events were more common with imiquimod than placebo and dose reductions occurred more frequently in the imiquimod group than in the placebo group (two RCTs, 83 women; RR 7.77, 95% CI 1.61 to 37.36; high-quality evidence). Headache, fatigue and discontinuation were slightly more common with imiquimod than cidofovir (moderate-quality evidence). Quality of life scores reported in one trial (52 women) were not significantly different for imiquimod and placebo. The evidence of effectiveness of topical treatments in immunosuppressed women was scant. There was insufficient evidence on other medical interventions. Surgical and other interventions: Low-quality evidence from the best included NRS indicated, when data were adjusted for confounders, that there was little difference in the risk of VIN recurrence between surgical excision and laser vaporisation. Recurrence occurred in 51% (37/70) of women overall, at a median of 14 months, and was more common in multifocal than unifocal lesions (66% versus 34%). Vulval cancer occurred in 11 women (15.1%) overall at a median of 71.5 months (9 to 259 months). The risk of vulval cancer did not differ significantly between excision and laser vaporisation in any of the NRSs; however, events were too few for robust findings. Alternative surgical procedures that might be as effective include Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA) and loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP) procedures, based on low- to very low-quality evidence, respectively. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that photodynamic therapy may be a useful treatment option.We found one ongoing RCT of medical treatment (imiquimod) compared with surgical treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical treatment (imiquimod or cidofovir) may effectively treat about half of uVIN cases after a 16-week course of treatment, but the evidence on whether this effect is sustained is limited. Factors predicting response to treatment are not clear, but small lesions may be more likely to respond. The relative risk of progression to vulval cancer is uncertain. However, imiquimod and cidofovir appear to be relatively well tolerated and may be favoured by some women over primary surgical treatment.There is currently no evidence on how medical treatment compares with surgical treatment. Women who undergo surgical treatment for uVIN have about a 50% chance of the condition recurring one year later, irrespective of whether treatment is by surgical excision or laser vaporisation. Multifocal uVIN lesions are at a higher risk of recurrence and progression, and pose greater therapeutic dilemmas than unifocal lesions. If occult cancer is suspected despite a biopsy diagnosis of uVIN, surgical excision remains the treatment of choice. If occult cancer is not a concern, treatment needs to be individualised to take into account the site and extent of disease, and a woman's preferences. Combined modalities may hold the key to optimal treatment of this complex disease.