Interventions for the treatment of Paget's disease of the vulva.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 10, 2013.Extramammary Paget's disease is a rare form of superficial skin cancer. The most common site of involvement is the vulva. It is seen mainly in postmenopausal white women. Paget's disease of the vulva often spreads in an occult fashion, with margins extending beyond the apparent edges of the lesion. There is a range of interventions from surgical to non-invasive techniques or treatments. The challenges of interventions are to remove or treat disease that may not be visible, without overtreatment and with minimisation of morbidity from radical surgery. There is little consensus regarding treatment. Surgery, by default, is the most common treatment, but it is challenging to excise the disease adequately, and recurrence is common, leading to repeated operations, and destruction of anatomy. Alternative treatments of photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, radiotherapy, topical treatments or even chemotherapy have been mooted, and it is important to evaluate the available evidence. It is essential to assess whether newer cell-specific treatments, such as photodynamic therapy and imiquimod, can reduce the need for radical surgery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatment modalities for the management of Paget's disease of the vulva. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) up to 8 May 2018. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and well-designed non-randomised studies that compared different interventions in women with Paget's disease of the vulva, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and, therefore, analysed no data. MAIN RESULTS: The search for the original version of the review identified 635 unique references. We found 31 references (which reported on 30 studies) in full text after inspection of titles and abstracts, but we excluded them all as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. However, we have included a comprehensive narrative account of studies where we identified an analysis of more than 10 women, as this forms the only evidence base in this rare disease. Surgery continues to be the mainstay of treatment in the current literature, with other treatments limited to case reports or treatment of inoperable or recurrent disease.This update between September 2013 and May 2018 identified 35 new studies. None of these met the inclusion criteria. There was only one prospective study of 5% imiquimod in recurrent Paget's disease of the vulva, which although of good quality only included eight women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of the review was published there are many more cases in the literature reporting a clinical response to 5% imiquimod cream. There is one prospective study of eight women treated with 5% imiquimod for recurrent Paget's disease of the vulva, and one prospective trial of 20 women was due to be reported. This increasing evidence for the safety and efficacy of 5% imiquimod will be helpful for women and clinicians alike. Ideally, a multicentre RCT of reasonable size is needed, but ongoing publications of high-quality non-randomised prospective studies will enhance the current available literature.

Type II or type III radical hysterectomy compared to chemoradiotherapy as a primary intervention for stage IB2 cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with 528,000 estimated new cases globally in 2012. A large majority (around 85%) of the disease burden occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where it accounts for almost 12% of all female cancers. Treatment of stage IB2 cervical cancers, which sit between early and advanced disease, is controversial. Some centres prefer to treat these cancers by radical hysterectomy, with chemoradiotherapy reserved for those at high risk of recurrence. In the UK, we treat stage IB2 cervical cancers mainly with chemoradiotherapy, based on the rationale that a high percentage will have risk factors necessitating chemoradiotherapy postsurgery. There has been no systematic review to determine the best possible evidence in managing these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine if primary surgery for stage IB2 cervical cancer (type II or type III radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy) improves survival compared to primary chemoradiotherapy.To determine if primary surgery combined with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for stage IB2 cervical cancer increases patient morbidity in the management of stage IB2 cervical cancer compared to primary chemoradiotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 3), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2018) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018 week 16). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies up to April 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and analysed data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4968 records from the literature searches, but we did not identify any RCTs that compared primary surgery with chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancer.We found one NRS comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancers which met the inclusion criteria. However, we were unable to obtain data for stage IB2 cancers only and considered the findings very uncertain due to a high risk of selection bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is an absence of high-certainty evidence on the relative benefits and harms of primary radical hysterectomy versus primary chemoradiotherapy for stage IB2 cervical cancer. More research is needed on the different treatment options in stage IB2 cervical cancer, particularly with respect to survival, adverse effects, and quality of life to facilitate informed decision-making and individualised care.

Risk Algorithm Using Serial Biomarker Measurements Doubles the Number of Screen-Detected Cancers Compared With a Single-Threshold Rule in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Cancer screening strategies have commonly adopted single-biomarker thresholds to identify abnormality. We investigated the impact of serial biomarker change interpreted through a risk algorithm on cancer detection rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, 46,237 women, age 50 years or older underwent incidence screening by using the multimodal strategy (MMS) in which annual serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) was interpreted with the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA). Women were triaged by the ROCA: normal risk, returned to annual screening; intermediate risk, repeat CA-125; and elevated risk, repeat CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound. Women with persistently increased risk were clinically evaluated. All participants were followed through national cancer and/or death registries. Performance characteristics of a single-threshold rule and the ROCA were compared by using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: After 296,911 women-years of annual incidence screening, 640 women underwent surgery. Of those, 133 had primary invasive epithelial ovarian or tubal cancers (iEOCs). In all, 22 interval iEOCs occurred within 1 year of screening, of which one was detected by ROCA but was managed conservatively after clinical assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of MMS for detection of iEOCs were 85.8% (95% CI, 79.3% to 90.9%) and 99.8% (95% CI, 99.8% to 99.8%), respectively, with 4.8 surgeries per iEOC. ROCA alone detected 87.1% (135 of 155) of the iEOCs. Using fixed CA-125 cutoffs at the last annual screen of more than 35, more than 30, and more than 22 U/mL would have identified 41.3% (64 of 155), 48.4% (75 of 155), and 66.5% (103 of 155), respectively. The area under the curve for ROCA (0.915) was significantly (P = .0027) higher than that for a single-threshold rule (0.869). CONCLUSION: Screening by using ROCA doubled the number of screen-detected iEOCs compared with a fixed cutoff. In the context of cancer screening, reliance on predefined single-threshold rules may result in biomarkers of value being discarded.

Interventions for the treatment of Paget's disease of the vulva.

BACKGROUND: Extra-mammary Paget's disease is a rare form of superficial skin cancer. The most common site of involvement is the vulva. It is seen mainly in postmenopausal white women. Paget's disease of the vulva often spreads in an occult fashion, with margins extending beyond the apparent edges of the lesion. There is a range of interventions from surgical to non-invasive techniques or treatments. The challenges of interventions are to remove or treat disease that may not be visible, without overtreatment and with minimisation of morbidity from radical surgery. There is little consensus regarding treatment. Surgery, by default, is the most common treatment, but it is challenging to excise the disease adequately, and recurrence is common, leading to repeated operations, and destruction of anatomy. Alternative treatments of photodynamic therapy, laser therapy, radiotherapy, topical treatments or even chemotherapy have been mooted, and it is important to evaluate the available evidence. It is essential to assess whether newer cell-specific treatments, such as photodynamic therapy and imiquimod, can reduce the need for radical surgery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatment modalities for the management of Paget's disease of the vulva. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and well-designed non-randomised studies that compared different interventions in women with Paget's disease of the vulva, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and, therefore, no data were analysed. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 635 unique references. We found 31 references (which reported on 30 studies) in full text after inspection of titles and abstracts, but we excluded them all as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. However, we have included a comprehensive narrative account of studies where we identified an analysis of more than 10 women, as this forms the only evidence base in this rare disease. Surgery continues to be the mainstay of treatment in the current literature, with other treatments limited to case reports or treatment of inoperable or recurrent disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reliable evidence to inform decisions about different interventions for women with Paget's disease of the vulva. Ideally, a multicentre RCT of reasonable size is needed. In particular, evidence regarding the increasing use of imiquimod would be helpful to women and clinicians alike. Well-designed non-randomised studies, that use multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances, as well as other key methodological strengths, are also lacking.

A pilot randomised controlled study of three models of follow-up of patients treated for gynaecological cancer: attitudes in general practice and feasibility of randomisation.

The value of routine follow-up in secondary care for cancer patients has been widely questioned. Within our network cancer centre for gynaecological malignancies current follow-up protocols have been associated with delays in diagnosing recurrence. The aim of this study was to ascertain general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes and feasibility of randomisation for a pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate follow-up of patients treated for gynaecological malignancy. There was a 78% response rate to the postal questionnaire; overall, GP attitudes were positive, with randomisation seeming feasible. We await the results from the pilot trial.