Gynecological Cancers in Lynch Syndrome: A Comparison of the Histological Features with Sporadic Cases of the General Population.

Introduction: About 5% of endometrial cancers (ECs) are attributed to an inherited predisposition, for which Lynch syndrome (LS) accounts for the majority of cases. Women with LS have a 40−60% predicted lifetime risk of developing EC, in addition to a 40−80% lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer and other cancers. In this population, the lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer (OC) is 10−12%. Object: to compare the histopathological features of LS-associated EC and OC with sporadic cancers in order to evaluate whether there are differences in terms of age at diagnosis, site of occurrence in the uterus, histological type, stage at diagnosis, and tumor grading. Materials and methods: we compared data obtained from 96 patients with LS-associated gynecological cancers (82 with EC and 14 with OC) to a control group (CG) of 209 patients who developed sporadic EC, and a CG of 187 patients with sporadic OC. Results: The mean age at diagnosis of LS-associated EC and OC was much lower than in the control groups. In both groups with EC, the endometrioid histotype was the most frequently occurring histotype. However, among LS women there was a significantly higher incidence of clear cell tumors (11% versus 2.4% in the CG, p = 0.0001). Similar to the sporadic cancer cases, most of the LS-associated ECs presented at an early stage (89% of cases at FIGO I-II stage). In the LS group, the tumor frequently involved only the inner half of the endometrium (77% of cases, p < 0.01). In the LS group, 7.3% of ECs were localized to the lower uterine segment (LUS), whereas no cancer developed in the LUS in the CG. No serous OCs were diagnosed in the LS group (versus 45.5% in the CG, p = 0.0009). Most of the LS-associated OCs presented at an early stage (85% of cases at FIGO I-II stages, p < 0.01). Conclusion: LS-associated EC and OC seem to have peculiar features, occurring at a younger age and at an earlier stage. In LS, EC less frequently involves the outer half of the endometrium, with a more frequent occurrence in the LUS. The presence of clear cell EC was more frequently observed, whereas in OC, the predominant histotype was endometrioid.

Lower Body Lymphedema in Patients with Gynecologic Cancer.

Lower body lymphedema is a chronic condition and a significant cause of morbidity following treatment of gynecologic cancer that strongly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL). Most studies on secondary lymphedema have been performed on the upper limb after breast cancer treatment and much less is known about lower body lymphedema after gynecologic malignancies. This review focuses on secondary lymphedema due to gynecologic cancer treatment, analyzing its incidence in the different types of gynecologic cancer, diagnosis, risk factors, impact on QoL and treatment. A systematic search of Medline has been performed to track the studies evaluating lower body lymphedema after treatment for endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulvar cancer. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about a uniform evaluation and, as a consequence, the reported incidence is broadly different among the studies. Standardization in lymphedema evaluation is required to better compare the outcome of different types of treatment.

Vaginal Atrophy in Breast Cancer Survivors: Attitude and Approaches Among Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) is a relevant problem for breast cancer survivors (BCSs), in particular for those who receive aromatase inhibitors (AIs). We conducted a survey, to assess the attitude of oncologists toward the diagnosis and treatment of VVA in BCSs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2015, 120 computer-assisted Web interviews were performed among breast oncologists. RESULTS: According to oncologists' perceptions, 60% of postmenopausal BCSs and 39.4% of premenopausal BCSs will suffer from VVA. Despite that none of the physicians considered VVA as a transient event or a secondary problem in BCSs, only half of the oncologists (48%) directly illustrated VVA to the patients as a possible consequence. Forty-one percent of the oncologists refer BCSs to gynaecologist to define VVA treatment, whereas 35.1% manages it alone. Nonhormonal treatments are preferred by most oncologists (71%). The main reason not to prescribe vaginal estrogen therapy in BCSs is the fear of increased cancer recurrence, the possible interference with tamoxifen, or AIs and the fear of medical litigation. CONCLUSION: VVA is a relevant problem for BCSs. Great effort should be done to correctly inform health care providers about VVA problems and on the different possible available treatments.

Breast cancer treatment in mutation carriers: surgical treatment.

The surgical option which should be reserved for patients with BRCA1/2 mutation and breast cancer diagnosis is still debated. Several aspects should be considered before the surgical decision-making: the risk of ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), the potential survival benefit of prophylactic mastectomy, and the possible risk factors that could either increase or decrease the risk for IBR or CBC. Breast conservative treatment (BCT) does not increase the risk for IBR in BRCA mutation carriers compared to non-carriers in short term follow-up; however, an increased risk for IBR in carriers was observed in studies with long follow-up. In spite of the increased risk for IBR in patients who underwent BCT than patients with mastectomy, no significant difference in breast-cancer specific or overall survival was observed by local treatment type at 15 years. Patients with BRCA mutation had a higher risk for CBC compared with non-carriers and BRCA1-mutation carriers had an increased risk for CBC compared to BRCA2-mutation carriers. Bilateral mastectomy is intended to prevent CBC in BRCA mutation carriers, however, no difference in survival was found if a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was performed or not. For higher-risk groups of BRCA mutated patients, a more-aggressive surgical approach may be preferable, but there are some aspects that should be considered in the surgical decision-making process. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy and performing oophorectomy are associated with a decreased risk for IBR. When considering the risk for CBC, three risk factors were associated with significantly decreased risk: the use of adjuvant tamoxifen, performing oophorectomy and older age at first breast cancer diagnosis. As a result, we could identify a group of patients that might benefit from a more aggressive surgical approach (unilateral mastectomy or unilateral therapeutic mastectomy with concomitant contralateral prophylactic mastectomy). For women with BRCA mutations candidate to mastectomy, preservation of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) may be highly important due to the generally younger age at time of surgery. Concerning the oncological safety, nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an acceptable option, with no evidence of compromise to oncological safety at short-term follow-up. The evaluation of surgical treatment in breast cancer patients with BRCA 1/2 mutation, should include several issues, namely the current evidence of adequate oncological safety of BCT in BRCA mutated patients; the increased risk for CBC especially in BRCA1 carriers; the feasibility on NSM with a greater patient's satisfaction for cosmetic results with no evidence of compromised oncological safety and, finally, the awareness that breast radiotherapy might increase the risk of complications in a possible subsequent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.

Chemoprevention or mastectomy for women at high risk of developing breast cancer.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed invasive cancer among women; in developed countries, BC occurs in one out of eight women during her lifetime. Many factors, both genetic and non-genetic, determine a woman's risk of breast cancer and several mathematical models have been proposed that determine the risk. It is important to identify those at high risk, as there are now effective preventive strategies, such as chemoprevention therapy and risk-reduction surgery. Risk-reduction agents are recommended for women aged 35 years or more who are at high risk of breast cancer. Tamoxifen is presently deemed to be the agent of choice. However, raloxifene may be preferable, at least for some postmenopausal women, because of its lack of effect on the endometrium and the reduced incidence of venous thromboembolic events compared with tamoxifen. Prophylactic surgery has been widely investigated. Bilateral mastectomy decreases the risk of developing breast cancer by approximately 90% in women at moderate or high risk and in known BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. This review summarizes the recent advances in the identification of women at high risk of developing breast cancer and reports on the strategies used to prevent breast cancer; the risk-benefit balance of such preventive choices is also briefly analyzed.