Association between adherence to posttreatment National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) surveillance guidelines and detection of recurrent uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify correlations between disease recurrence and adherence to NCCN posttreatment surveillance guidelines in patients who develop recurrent uterine cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis identified patients (n = 60) with recurrent uterine cancer and at least one surveillance visit with a gynecologic oncologist between 2011 and 2020. Adherence to NCCN guidelines and details of recurrence were recorded. RESULTS: Recurrent uterine cancer was identified in 60 patients with an average time to recurrence (TTR) of 25 months. Of those, 39 (65%) were adherent to NCCN surveillance guidelines and 36 (60%) were symptomatic at the time of recurrence diagnosis. Asymptomatic recurrence was diagnosed by imaging in 11 (46%), physical exam in 7 (29%), and blood work in 6 (25%) patients. Patients who were adherent to NCCN guidelines were diagnosed with recurrence on average 11 months earlier (p = 0.0336). Adherence was an independent predictor of TTR for all patients regardless of symptoms. There was no significant effect of age, race, primary language, or stage of disease on adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence to NCCN posttreatment surveillance guidelines for uterine cancer is independently associated with an earlier diagnosis of recurrence.

Safety and efficacy of thalidomide in recurrent epithelial ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Thalidomide is an anti-angiogenesis agent that has shown activity in some solid tumors. We performed a phase I clinical trial to determine the toxicity and potential efficacy of Thalidomide in recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer were evaluated between 1998 and 2000. Data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: 17 heavily pretreated patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer received oral Thalidomide starting at 100 mg/day, with dose escalations of 100 mg/day every 2 weeks, up to 1200 mg/day as tolerated. The median number of courses was four (range: 1-18 courses), and median dose was 200 mg/day (range: 100-600 mg/day). Treatment duration ranged from 2 to 48 months. Common grade 1 or 2 side effects included constipation (76%), neuropathy (71%), and fatigue (65%) with few grade 3 or 4 events. Three (18%) patients had partial responses, and six (35%) had stabilization of disease after 6 months. After 1 year of treatment, six of the nine patients with an initial partial response (n=2) or stable disease (n=4) remained in these response categories. Median time to progression was 10 months. Forty-seven percent of patients had a 50-70% decrease in CA125 levels. Using logistic regression and repeated measures analyses, CA125 levels decreased by 62 units/ml per month (p=0.07). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the safety, tolerability, and potential efficacy of Thalidomide in recurrent and refractory epithelial ovarian cancers. Additional clinical trials are warranted.

Breast cancer followed by corpus cancer: is there a higher risk for aggressive histologic subtypes?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze corpus cancer patients with a breast cancer history for risk of developing aggressive uterine histologic types. METHODS: Corpus cancer patients with a history of breast cancer were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database from 1988 to 2001. Demographics, clinico-pathologic, and survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 52,109 women diagnosed with corpus cancer, 1922 had a history of breast cancer. Women with a history of breast cancer had a significantly higher proportion of uterine papillary serous carcinomas (UPSC) and sarcomas compared to those without a breast cancer history (9.4% vs. 6.3% for UPSC and 10.3% vs. 8.4% for sarcoma; P < 0.001). Patients with endometrioid or sarcoma of the uterus after breast cancer had significantly worse 5-year survivals than patients without a breast cancer history (84.4% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.001 and 49.0% vs. 63.6%, P < 0.001, respectively). Older age, advanced stage, lack of surgery and radiation treatment, poor histologic types, and history of breast cancer were independent prognostic factors for poorer survival. CONCLUSION: In this study, the proportional incidence of UPSC and sarcoma was significantly higher in women with a breast cancer history. These findings highlight the association of breast cancer and high-risk corpus cancer subtypes.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology: methodological quality and trends.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate methodological quality and trends of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) published in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A medical literature search of articles from 1966 through 2002 was performed to identify original, English-language articles that included economic analyses in gynecologic oncology. We included articles that were cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses or performed these analyses as part of their study. Ten methodological principles that should be incorporated in CEAs were assessed for each study. Each article was given a score of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the 10 methodological principles (max score = 20). Data were analyzed using the Student t test, ANOVA, and linear regression. RESULTS: We screened 693 articles to identify 68 that met our inclusion criteria. The articles focused on cervical cancer (n = 53; 78%), ovarian cancer (n = 11; 16%), uterine cancer (n = 2; 3%), and general perioperative care (n = 2; 3%). The mean (+/-SD) methodological principle score was 16.1 (+/-4.1) and we observed a significant improvement in the total score over time (P = 0.01). Primary CEA's (CEA identified as the objective of the study) were of higher quality than secondary CEA's (primary objective of the study was not CEA but CEA was included in the study; total scores 18.2 vs. 11.6, respectively; P<0.0001). Studies with at least one investigator in public health or healthcare economies also had higher quality (mean total score 17.7 vs. 15.2; P=0.006). The most common limitations of published CEAs were in methodology or presentation of incremental analyses, sensitivity analyses, and discounting. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology showed significant improvement in quality over the last two decades. Despite this progress, methodological improvement is still needed in the areas of incremental comparisons and sensitivity analysis. Understanding the methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis is critical for researchers, editors, and readers to accurately interpret results of the growing body of CEA articles.