Development of Peritoneal Carcinoma in women diagnosed with Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma (STIC) following Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO).

INTRODUCTION: The management of Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma (STIC) found at the time of Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO) remains unclear. We set out to analyse the incidence of peritoneal carcinomas developed after prophylactic surgery and to formulate further guidance for these patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 300 consecutive RRSO performed at the Royal Marsden Hospital between January 2008 and January 2017. RESULTS: The median age at RRSO was 47.8 years (range 34 to 60 years) and median BMI was 26.2 kg/m2 (range 16 to 51 kg/m2). A total of 273 patients (91%) were tested for BRCA mutations. Of these, 124 (45.4%) had a BRCA 1 mutation, 118 (43.2%) had a BRCA 2 mutation, 2 (0.7%) had both a BRCA 1 and a BRCA 2 mutation and 29 (10.6%) had no BRCA mutation detected. Isolated STIC lesions were identified in 7 cases (2.3%) and p53 signatures in 75 cases (25%). There were five (1.6%) incidental tubal carcinomas and one (0.3%) ovarian carcinoma at the time of surgery. Two (28.6%) of the 7 patients with STIC identified following RRSO had high grade serous peritoneal carcinoma diagnosed at 53 and 75 months. One (0.3%) patient from the other 287 patients from our series with no STIC diagnosis or incidental carcinomas at RRSO developed high grade serous carcinoma of peritoneal origin after 92 months. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that when a STIC lesion is identified following RRSO there is a significantly higher risk of a subsequent peritoneal cancer. Although there is no published consensus in literature, we recommend that consideration should be given for long term follow-up if a STIC lesion is identified at RRSO.

Laparoscopic staging for apparent early stage ovarian or fallopian tube cancer. First case series from a UK cancer centre and systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of laparoscopic staging of apparent early stage adnexal cancers. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on women who had laparoscopic staging for apparent early stage adnexal cancers from May 2008 to September 2012 was reviewed. All women had had a prior surgical procedure at which the diagnosis was made, without comprehensive staging. A systematic MEDLINE search from 1980 to 2012 for publications on laparoscopic staging was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five women had laparoscopic staging. Median age was 45 years (range 21-73). Median operative time was 210 min (range 90-210). Four intra-operative and one post-operative complication occurred; overall complication rate 5/35 (14%). One vena cava and one transverse colon injury underwent laparotomies for repair. Laparotomy conversion rate 2/35 (6%). Following laparoscopic staging, the cancer was upstaged for eight (23%) women; microscopic omental involvement (four women), pelvic lymph node involvement (two women), para-aortic lymph node involvement (one woman) and contra-lateral ovarian involvement (one woman). After follow up for a median of 18 months (range 3-59) the disease free survival was 94% and overall survival was 100%. Nine studies were identified on laparoscopic staging of adnexal cancer, of which this is the largest single institution series. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the evidence that laparoscopic staging is at least as safe as staging by laparotomy with appropriate and similar oncological outcomes, but with the advantages of minimal access surgery. We therefore advocate the use of laparoscopy to achieve surgical staging for women with presumed early stage adnexal cancer.

Surgical management and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer: survey of gynaecological oncologists in the UK.

We investigated current surgical management and follow-up of women with cervical cancer focusing on treatment of recurrent disease and the use of routine imaging during follow-up among gynaecological oncologists in the UK. A questionnaire including questions regarding perioperative management of primary disease in cervical cancer, follow-up post-treatment, assessment and management of recurrent cervical cancer, was sent to 84 gynaecological oncologists. Some 87% responded. Considerable variations in surgical management and follow-up were identified. With central recurrence of cervical cancer without prior radiotherapy, 90% would recommend radiotherapy instead of an exenteration. For central recurrence in irradiated women, only three (4%) would not recommend an exenteration. In women with pelvic sidewall relapse without prior radiotherapy, 65 responders (96%) would offer radiotherapy, while in pelvic sidewall relapse post-radiation 25 (37%) would recommend pelvic sidewall resection in a specialised centre. A total of 21% used routine imaging during follow-up. The wide variation in clinical practice indicates that there is a need to establish national guidelines for surgical management and follow-up of primary and recurrent cervical cancer.

Long-term CIN3+ risk in women with abnormal cytology; role of hrHPV testing.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined the short-term value of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in predicting cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+). This study focuses on long-term CIN3+ risk after initial wait and see policy. METHODS: A total of 342 women with abnormal cytology of borderline/mild dyskaryosis (BMD) or worse (>BMD), included between 1990 and 1992, were followed-up by cytology and hrHPV testing until 1996 and monitored by cytology thereafter. Primary endpoint was cumulative CIN3+ risk by December 2009. RESULTS: Women with BMD had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 22.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0-29.1) and of 0.7% (0.1-4.5) in the subsequent 5 years. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with BMD had a 5-year risk of <0.01% (95% CI 0.0-5.1) and of <0.01% (0.0-5.7) in the following 5 years, while for hrHPV-positive women these risks were 37.5% (29.0-46.9) and 1.6% (0.2-9.5), respectively. Women with >BMD had a 5-year risk of 45.1% (36.4-54.1) and of 3.5% (0.9-12.2) in the subsequent 5 years. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with >BMD had a 5-year risk of 7.3% (2.0-23.6) and hrHPV-positive women of 56.6% (46.4-66.3). CONCLUSION: Women with BMD have an elevated CIN3+ risk for 5 years only; afterwards their risk is similar to the general population. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with BMD may return to regular screening directly. All other women with BMD should be referred for additional testing and/or colposcopy.

High-risk human papillomavirus clearance in pregnant women: trends for lower clearance during pregnancy with a catch-up postpartum.

We followed 353 women referred with abnormal cervical cytology in a non-intervention cohort study. In 91 pregnant women we compared high-risk human papilloma virus rates in the subsequent trimesters and postpartum in comparison to 262 non-pregnant women. High-risk human papilloma virus clearance was compared with 179 high-risk human papilloma virus positive non-pregnant women. Our main questions were: (1) do high-risk human papilloma virus rates change during pregnancy?; and (2) is there any difference between high-risk human papilloma virus clearance in pregnant and non-pregnant women? Women were monitored 3-4 monthly by cytology, colposcopy, and high-risk human papilloma virus testing. The median follow-up time was 33 months (range 3-74). Non-pregnant women showed prevalence rates of high-risk human papilloma virus of 64, 57, 53, and 50%, respectively, in four subsequent 3-months periods since the start of the study. These high-risk human papilloma virus rates were higher than in the three trimesters of pregnancy, and during the first 3 months postpartum, i.e. 50, 44, 45, and 31%, respectively. Postpartum only, this difference was statistically significant (P=0.004). Paired comparisons of high-risk human papilloma virus prevalence rates of the different trimesters with the postpartum rate showed (McNemar test) decreased rates: first trimester: 18% (P=0.02), second trimester: 13% (P=0.02) and third trimester: 23% (P<0.005). Such a phenomenon was not found in non-pregnant women. Pregnant women showed a trend for increased high-risk human papilloma virus clearance during the third trimester and postpartum compared to non-pregnant women (hazard ratios 3.3 (0.8-13.7) and 4.6 (1.6-12.8), respectively). These results suggest a lowered immune-response against human papilloma virus during the first two trimesters of pregnancy with a catch-up postpartum.

Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Self sampling is considered an adjuvant tool to facilitate the participation of women in cervical cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to evaluate whether cervicovaginal lavage could be an alternative for the cervical smear in cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and to assess the acceptance of the self sampling device by women. METHODS: Fifty six women with abnormal cervical cytology (very mild dyskaryosis or worse) and 15 women with normal cervical cytology obtained a self collected cervicovaginal lavage at home and filled in a questionnaire on the use of the device. At the colposcopy clinic the gynaecologist performed the same procedure followed by a cervical smear for cytology and HPV DNA testing. RESULTS: The self sampling device was acceptable to 88% of the women. The concordance between the cytology results in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 54% and 41%, respectively (kappa = 0.28 and 0.14). The concordance between high risk HPV detection in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 93% and 78%, respectively (kappa = 0.82 and 0.53). Ninety one per cent of the women with high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) had a high risk HPV positive test in the smear, compared with 91% and 81% in the lavages taken by the doctor and the patient, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HPV DNA testing by home obtained samples is useful as a screening tool for cervical cancer, whereas cervical cytology by self sampling is not. Although the sensitivity for high grade CIN by high risk HPV testing in the lavage by the patient is not significantly lower than that in the cervical smear, self sampling for HPV DNA is a feasible alternative method in women who decline to participate in population based cervical cancer screening programmes. However, participation in the screening programme remains the best option.