[Environmental and genetic risk factors for endometrial carcinoma]. / Les facteurs de risque génétiques et environnementaux des cancers de l'endomètre.

In France, endometrial cancer is at the first rank of gynecological cancers for cancer incidence, before ovarian and cervical cancers. In fact, the number of incident cases has been estimated to 7275 for the year 2012; the number of death due to endometrial cancer to 2025. This cancer is hormone-dependent and endogenous (reproductive factors) or exogenous (oral combined contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) causes of exposition to estrogens are the major environmental risk factors for both types of endometrial cancers: type I or well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinomas; and type II including all other histological types: papillary serous adenocarcinomas, clear cell adenocarcinomas and carcinosarcomas, also known as malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, MMMT. Obesity, diabetes mellitus and adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen are also associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer. Genetic factors may also be implicated in the pathogenesis of endometrial cancer either as "minor genetic factors" (susceptibility factors), which remain largely unknown and are responsible for the increased observed risk in relatives of women affected with endometrial cancer; or as major genetic factors responsible for hereditary forms and namely for Lynch syndrome whose genetic transmission is of autosomic dominant type. The appropriate recognition of Lynch syndrome is of critical importance because affected patients and their relatives should benefit from specific care. The aims of this review is to describe major environmental and genetic risk factors for endometrial cancer with specific attention to most recent advances in this field and to describe recommendations for care of at-risk women.

Out-of-hospital follow-up after low risk breast cancer within a care network: 14-year results.

The delegation of low-risk breast cancer patients' follow-up to non-hospital practitionners (NHP), including gynaecologists and general practitioners, has been assessed prospectively within a care network in the Paris region. Patients with early stage breast cancer were eligible. The follow-up protocol was built according to international guidelines. By 2012, 289 NHPs were following 2266 patients treated in 11 centres. Median follow-up time was 7.4 years. The mean intervals between two consecutive consultations were 9.5 [9.2-9.8] months for women supposed to be monitored every 6 months and 12.5 [12.2-12.8] for those requiring annual monitoring. The relapse rate was 3.2% [2.1-4.3] at 5 years and 7.8% [5.9-9.7] at 10 years. Seventy one percent of relapses were diagnosed on a scheduled assessment. Only 6% were lost-to-follow-up. Delegating follow-up after low risk breast cancer to NHPs in a care network is feasible, well accepted and provides an alternative to follow-up in specialized centres.

[Breast cancer follow-up by primary care physician: patient satisfaction in the Metropolitan Paris region]. / Suivi en ville après un cancer du sein : satisfaction des patientes dans le Réseau Gynécomed Île-de-France.

Because of increasing breast cancer incidence and improvement in long-term prognosis, follow-up of patients cannot be carried out entirely in specialized cancer centres. The Réseau Gynécomed was created to transfer the follow-up of patients to primary care physicians (PCP). In 2009, to evaluate the quality of PCP follow-up, a satisfaction study was performed for the 1,245 women followed after breast cancer. Sixty-four percent of the women participate in the study. Before starting follow-up, 87% were informed about its purpose and 93% about its schedule. The satisfaction score was excellent (91%). Old age, perception of a good health status, a high quality of information about and a confident relationship with their PCP were associated with a better satisfaction level. Forty-eight percent of patients thought easy to accept the PCP follow-up. Considering this data, PCP monitoring seems to provide a good follow-up and may be developed. Nonetheless, conditions of patients' choice should be improved and particularly exclude patients with financial difficulties. It would facilitate the growing transfer of follow-up to the PCP.