2023 FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer: The evolution of the revolution.

INTRODUCTION: Embracing the complex and diverse nature of the heterogenous group of malignancies that are included under the umbrella of "endometrial cancer" (EC) to better align prognosis with treatment recommendations, requires a more comprehensive staging system. Our goal at the development of the new FIGO staging was to provide 1) high accuracy in the predictive prognosis for a patient with EC, which is the genuine purpose of a staging system, and 2) identification of distinct treatment relevant subgroups. Since the publication of the 2009 staging system by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 14  years ago (1, 2), our understanding of the biology and natural history of EC has undergone a radical transformation. The TGCA results in 2013 (3), and the many validation reports published since then (4-9), have taught us that "EC" is composed of at least four distinct molecularly defined diseases. Strong histopathologic markers reflecting tumor biology such as lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) were identified. Importantly, anatomical borders were shown to lose their prognostic relevance for EC patients in the presence of dominant tumor biology-markers such as molecular subtypes/LVSI (10, 11). This emphasizes the integration of these novel markers into a prognostic staging system that aims to be relevant to patients. The 2023 FIGO staging system for EC harmonizes and integrates old and new knowledge on anatomic, histopathologic, and molecular features (12). It requires a change in our perception of a staging system, from a traditional purely anatomical borders-based system to an integrated staging system integrating anatomical borders and tumor biology as pivotal prognostic factors for EC patients while providing important information for treatment decision making. Therefore, the 2023 FIGO staging system demonstrates the logical next step in the evolution of the revolution in a patient-centric staging approach. Below, we elucidate the rationale for the FIGO 2023 endometrial cancer staging system.

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-based chemotherapy has emerged as a highly promising primary option for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). The study aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy of ICIs with cytotoxic chemotherapy in EC. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials up to November 11, 2023, focusing on immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for EC. The primary endpoint was the pooled hazard ratio (HR), which was further analyzed across subgroups based on mismatch repair (MMR) status, race, histology, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023475669). FINDINGS: Four trials with 2335 patients were analyzed. ICIs with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89) compared to chemotherapy alone. Stratification by MMR status showed substantial benefits for dMMR (PFS; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; OS; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91) over pMMR cohorts in both PFS and OS. In the subgroup analysis, there was significant PFS advantage in Caucasian (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.72) over non-Caucasian, in endometrioid histology (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78) over non-endometrioid, and in PD-L1 positive (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81) over PD-L1 negative population. INTERPRETATION: ICIs combined with platinum-based chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS and OS in patients with advanced or recurrent EC. Patients with dMMR status, Caucasians, endometrioid histology, and positive PD-L1 status showed significant PFS benefits, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches to improve outcomes.

Surgery for Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review evidence around the value and challenges of surgery for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (ROC). Both cytoreductive and palliative aspects will be addressed RECENT FINDINGS: Prospective and retrospective evidence demonstrates a significantly longer remission derived from the combination of surgical and systemic modalities as opposed to systemic treatment alone in carefully selected ROC-patients who have relapsed more than 6 months from the end of their 1st line platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, this benefit appears to be limited when total macroscopic tumor clearance is not achieved. Selection algorithms to identify optimal surgical candidates are of paramount importance to prevent surgical morbidity without the equivalent oncological benefit. In the palliative setting, the risks and benefits of salvage surgery need to be counterbalanced with the advances of conservative techniques for optimal care. Well-defined selection algorithms to identify those who will benefit from surgery in the relapsed setting appear to be the key to oncologic and surgical success.

Infrastructural and public health awareness gaps for the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer: A literature review.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the sixth most common cancer in women. This literature review and thematic analysis presents gaps in Health Literacy including public knowledge on symptoms, risk, and screening for OC. We have identified a strong variation in national and international Healthcare Infrastructure, and access to specialized care, and treatment guidelines; all inequalities that have a direct impact on patient prognosis and survival. Promoting health behaviors such as self-efficacy, signposting, and regular surveying have the potential to improve health literacy and patient outcomes. Furthermore, increased funding, access to high-volume centers, and homogenization of treatment guidelines may reduce inequalities and improve prognosis.

Patient care and access to clinical trials in gynaecological oncology: global implications of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Our prospective international survey evaluated the impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management gynaecological malignancies from the multidisciplinary physicians' perspective with particular focus on clinical infrastructures and trial participation. METHODS: Our survey consisted of 53 COVID-related questions. It was sent to healthcare professionals in gynaecological oncology centres across Europe and Pan-Arabian region via the study groups and gynaecological societies from April 2020 to October 2020. All healthcare professionals treating gynaecological cancers were able to participate in our survey. RESULTS: A total of 255 answers were collected from 30 countries. The majority (73%) of participants were gynaecological oncologists from university hospitals (71%) with at least an Intensive Care Unit with cardiopulmonary support available at their institutions. Most institutions continued to perform elective surgeries only for oncological cases (98%). Patients had to wait on average 2 weeks longer for their surgery appointments compared to previous years (range 0-12 weeks). Most cases that were prioritised for surgical intervention across all gynaecological tumours were early-stage disease (74%), primary situation (61%) and good ECOG status (63%). The radicality of surgery did not change in the majority of cases (78%) across all tumour types. During the pandemic, only 38% of clinicians stated they would start a new clinical trial. Almost half of the participants stated the pandemic negatively impacted the financial structure and support for clinical trials. Approximately 20% of clinicians did not feel well-informed regarding clinical algorithm for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Thirty percent stated that they are currently having trouble in providing adequate medical care due to staff shortage. CONCLUSION: Despite well-established guidelines, pandemic clearly affected clinical research and patientcare. Our survey underlines the necessity for building robust emergency algorithms tailored to gynaecological oncology to minimise negative impact in crises and to preserve access to clinical trials.

Tumor biology and impact on timing of surgery in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

Recent advances in epithelial ovarian cancer research have led to a shift in treatment strategy from the traditional 'organ-centric' to a personalized tumor biology-based approach. Nevertheless, we are still far behind an individualized approach for cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer; the gold standard of primary treatment in combination with systemic agents. The impact of tumor biology on treatment sequence is still understudied. It is obvious, that response to platinum-based therapy is crucial for the success of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. While high-grade serous and endometrioid tumors are commonly characterized by an excellent response, other subtypes are considered poor responders or even resistant to platinum. Undoubtedly, neoadjuvant chemotherapy may filter poor responders, but to date, we still do not have appropriate alternatives to platinum-based chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant and first-line setting and 'adjusting' systemic treatment in cases of poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains elusive. Primary cytoreduction is still considered the gold standard for fit patients with operable tumor dissemination patterns, especially for those ovarian cancer subtypes that show poor response to platinum. Of note, even in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, approximately 20% of tumors are platinum resistant and the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in this subgroup is limited. Interestingly, these tumors are associated with the mesenchymal molecular subtype, which in turn correlates with high risk for residual disease after cytoreductive surgery and is characterized by the worst survival outcome among high-grade ovarian cancers. This leads to the question, how to best tailor surgical radicality at the onset of patients' presentation to avoid associated morbidity and with a moderate benefit. Here, we give an overview of recent advances of interaction between tumor biology and surgery in ovarian cancer.

ESTRO/ESGO/SIOPe Guidelines for the management of patients with vaginal cancer.

Primary vaginal malignancies are rare, comprising only 2% of all female genital tract malignancies in adults and 4.5% in children. As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPe) developed evidence-based guidelines in order to improve the management of patients with vaginal cancer within a multidisciplinary setting.ESTRO/ESGO/SIOPe nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in the management of vaginal cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, their national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (13 experts across Europe comprising the international development group). To ensure that the statements were evidence based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised.In the case of absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 112 independent international practitionners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives and their comments and input were incorporated and addressed accordingly.These guidelines cover comprehensively the diagnostic pathways as well as the surgical, radiotherapeutical and systemic management and follow-up of adult patients (including those with rare histological subtypes) and pediatric patients (vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma and germ cell tumours) with vaginal tumours.

ESGO/ESTRO quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) has previously defined and established a list of quality indicators for the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. As a continuation of this effort to improve overall quality of care for cervical cancer patients across all aspects, ESGO and the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) initiated the development of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of quality indicators for radiation therapy of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice by giving to practitioners and administrators a quantitative basis to improve care and organizational processes, notably for recognition of the increased complexity of modern external radiotherapy and brachytherapy techniques. METHODS: Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for identification of potential quality indicators and documentation of scientific evidence, consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians (n=99). RESULTS: Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are detailed to define how the quality indicators will be measured in practice. Targets were also defined for specifying the level which each unit or center should be aiming to achieve. Nineteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were defined. Quality indicators 1-6 are general requirements related to pretreatment workup, time to treatment, upfront radiation therapy, and overall management, including active participation in clinical research and the decision making process within a structured multidisciplinary team. Quality indicators 7-17 are related to treatment indicators. Quality indicators 18 and 19 are related to patient outcomes. DISCUSSION: This set of quality indicators is a major instrument to standardize the quality of radiation therapy in cervical cancer. A scoring system combining surgical and radiotherapeutic quality indicators will be developed within an envisaged future ESGO accreditation process for the overall management of cervical cancer, in an effort to support institutional and governmental quality assurance programs.

Fertility outcomes following surgery and multiagent chemotherapy in malignant ovarian germ cell tumor survivors: a survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess fertility outcomes in long-term survivors of malignant ovarian germ cell tumors treated with fertility-sparing surgery with or without additional chemotherapy. METHODS: Women diagnosed and treated for malignant ovarian germ cell tumors at Charing Cross Hospital or Mount Vernon Cancer Centre between 1977 and 2015 were included. Questionnaires assessing fertility issues were sent to patients treated with fertility-sparing surgery. Fertility outcomes were evaluated according to the treatment received. The effect of the mean total dose of cyclophosphamide and cisplatin was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were sent the questionnaire; 77 (56.5%) patients were included in the analysis. A total of 49 (64%) patients received platinum-based chemotherapy after surgery, 39 (79.6%) of these with cisplatin, vincristine, methotrexate, bleomycin, actinomycin D, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, while 10 (20.4%) with bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin. After any treatment, 39/46 patients (85%) became pregnant: the conception rate was not different between those receiving surgery only and those receiving also chemotherapy (85.7% vs 84.4%, p=1.0). Live birth rate was 80.4% (37/46), with no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (p=0.42). Median age of women achieving conception was 29 years (IQR 26-33). The probability of live birth at 5 years was 48% and 40% for patients in the surgery only and chemotherapy group, respectively (p=0.55). Infertility and miscarriage rates did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (p=0.30 and p=0.32). The mean doses of cisplatin and cyclophosphamide received by patients failing and achieving conception were not different (p=0.10, p=0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that fertility may not be hampered in patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumor treated with fertility-sparing surgery or receiving additional chemotherapy.

Prognostic value of CA125 kinetics, half-life, and nadir in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic value of cancer antigen 125 (CA125) related variables on progression free survival and overall survival in primary and recurrent ovarian cancers. METHOD: A comprehensive review of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify relevant literature on survival outcomes according to the ELIMination Rate Constant K (KELIM), Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 response criteria, CA125 half-life, and CA125 nadir levels during first line or later line chemotherapy. The search included articles published before February 2023. Cut-off values determining the favorable/unfavorable score of each study were extracted, and pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed using a random effects model to identify the relationship between survival outcomes of the favorable/unfavorable groups, which was determined by an individual model using CA125 kinetics. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies with 14 444 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were included in this meta-analysis. In primary ovarian cancer, a favorable KELIM score, determined by individual modeled cut-off values, was associated with a significant progression free survival (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and overall survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.62) benefit in the primary setting. The favorable KELIM scored group also correlated with a better progression free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.62) in relapsed disease. We failed to demonstrate a better prognostic value of the GCIG response criteria and the CA125 half-life for progression free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Novel chemotherapy response scores, such as KELIM, may be more clinically relevant than other prognostic models using CA125 kinetics, being directly associated with a more favorable survival in both the primary and relapsed setting in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: The systemic review and meta-analysis were registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023385512).

PARa-aOrtic LymphAdenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer (PAROLA trial): a GINECO, ENGOT, and GCIG study.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) fails to detect approximately 25% of aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with PET/CT stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. Surgical staging could lead to treatment modification and to improved para-aortic and distant control. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate if chemoradiation with tailored external beam radiation field based on surgical staging and pathologic examination of the para-aortic lymph node is associated with improved 3-year disease-free survival compared with patients staged with PET/CT staging only. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Surgical staging followed by tailored chemoradiation will improve disease-free survival while avoiding unnecessary prophylactic extended-field chemoradiation in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. TRIAL DESIGN: This is an international multicenter, randomized, phase III study. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 between PET/CT staging followed by chemoradiation (control arm), or surgical staging followed by tailored chemo-radiation (experimental arm). Randomization will be stratified by tumor stage according to TNM classification, center, and adjuvant treatment. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Main inclusion criteria are histologically proven PET/CT FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. Main exclusion criteria include unequivocal positive common iliac or para-aortic lymph node at pre-therapeutic imaging PET/CT. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is disease-free survival defined as the time from randomization until first relapse (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. SAMPLE SIZE: 510 eligible patients ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The estimated date for completing accrual will be Q2 2027. The estimated date for presenting results will be Q4 2030. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05581121.

Validation analysis of the novel imaging-based prognostic radiomic signature in patients undergoing primary surgery for advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC).

BACKGROUND: Predictive models based on radiomics features are novel, highly promising approaches for gynaecological oncology. Here, we wish to assess the prognostic value of the newly discovered Radiomic Prognostic Vector (RPV) in an independent cohort of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients, treated within a Centre of Excellence, thus avoiding any bias in treatment quality. METHODS: RPV was calculated using standardised algorithms following segmentation of routine preoperative imaging of patients (n = 323) who underwent upfront debulking surgery (01/2011-07/2018). RPV was correlated with operability, survival and adjusted for well-established prognostic factors (age, postoperative residual disease, stage), and compared to previous validation models. RESULTS: The distribution of low, medium and high RPV scores was 54.2% (n = 175), 33.4% (n = 108) and 12.4% (n = 40) across the cohort, respectively. High RPV scores independently associated with significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.69; 95% CI:1.06-2.71; P = 0.038), even after adjusting for stage, age, performance status and residual disease. Moreover, lower RPV was significantly associated with total macroscopic tumour clearance (OR = 2.02; 95% CI:1.56-2.62; P = 0.00647). CONCLUSIONS: RPV was validated to independently identify those HGSOC patients who will not be operated tumour-free in an optimal setting, and those who will relapse early despite complete tumour clearance upfront. Further prospective, multicentre trials with a translational aspect are warranted for the incorporation of this radiomics approach into clinical routine.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) at the time of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is controversial and its use remains experimental in most national and international guidelines. We wished to systematically evaluate all available evidence. METHODS: A comprehensive review of data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from the first report on HIPEC in EOC till April 3, 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the HIPEC and control groups. This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265810). RESULTS: Fifteen studies (10 case-control studies and 5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) were included in the present meta-analysis. Based on the time interval between the last systemic chemotherapy exposure and timing of CRS +/- HIPEC, all studies and patients' cohorts we classified into recent (<6 months; n = 9 studies/patients cohorts) and non-recent (≥6 months, n = 8 studies/patients cohorts) chemotherapy exposure groups. In the recent chemotherapy exposure group, HIPEC was associated with improvement of both PFS (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.422-0.811) and OS (HR, 0.519; 95% CI, 0.346-0.777). On the contrary, in the non-recent chemotherapy exposure group, HIPEC failed to significantly affect PFS (HR, 1.037; 95% CI, 0.684-1.571) or OS (HR, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.607-1.430). Consistent results were observed in subsequent sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our present meta-analysis demonstrates that the value of HIPEC at CRS for EOC appears to depend on the timing of the last systemic chemotherapy exposure. Future trials are awaited to define the role of HIPEC in EOC.

Predictive biomarker for surgical outcome in patients with advanced primary high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Are we there yet? An analysis of the prospective biobank for ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most common subtype of ovarian cancer and is associated with high mortality rates. Surgical outcome is one of the most important prognostic factors. There are no valid biomarkers to identify which patients may benefit from a primary debulking approach. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to discover and validate a predictive panel for surgical outcome of residual tumor mass after first-line debulking surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Firstly, "In silico" analysis of publicly available datasets identified 200 genes as predictors for surgical outcome. The top selected genes were then validated using the novel Nanostring method, which was applied for the first time for this particular research objective. 225 primary ovarian cancer patients with well annotated clinical data and a complete debulking rate of 60% were compiled for a clinical cohort. The 14 best rated genes were then validated through the cohort, using immunohistochemistry testing. Lastly, we used our biomarker expression data to predict the presence of miliary carcinomatosis patterns. RESULTS: The Nanostring analysis identified 37 genes differentially expressed between optimal and suboptimal debulked patients (p < 0.05). The immunohistochemistry validated the top 14 genes, reaching an AUC Ø0.650. The analysis for the prediction of miliary carcinomatosis patterns reached an AUC of Ø0.797. CONCLUSION: The tissue-based biomarkers in our analysis could not reliably predict post-operative residual tumor. Patient and non-patient-associated co-factors, surgical skills, and center experience remain the main determining factors when considering the surgical outcome at primary debulking in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients.

OVA-LEAK: Prognostic score for colo-rectal anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to define and validate an anastomotic leak prognostic score based on previously described and reported anastomotic leak risk factors (OVA-LEAK: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) and to establish if the use of OVA-LEAK score is better than clinical criteria (surgeon's choice) selecting anastomosis to be protected with a diverting ileostomy. MATERIAL & METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicentre cohort study that included patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for primary advanced or relapsed ovarian cancer with colorectal resection and anastomosis between January 2011 and June 2021. Data from patients already included in the previous predictive model were not considered in the present analysis. To validate the performance of our logistic regression model, we used the OVA-LEAK formula (Annex I: https://n9.cl/ova-leakscore) for estimating leakage probabilities in a new independent cohort. Then, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and area under the curve (AUC) was used to measure the performance of the model. Additionally, the Brier score was also estimated. 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each of the estimated performance measures were also calculated. RESULTS: 848 out of 1159 recruited patients were finally included in the multivariable logistic regression model validation. The AUC of the new cohort was 0.63 for predicting anastomotic leak. Considering a cut-off point of 22.1% to be 'positive' (to get a leak) this would provide a sensitivity of 0.45, specificity of 0.80, positive predictive value of 0.09 and negative predictive value of 0.97 for anastomotic leak. If we consider this cut-off point to select patients at risk of leak for bowel diversion, up to 22.5% of the sampled patients would undergo a diverting ileostomy and 47% (18/40) of the anastomotic leaks would be 'protected' with the stoma. Nevertheless, if we consider only the 'clinical criteria' for performing or not a diverting ileostomy, only 12.5% (5/40) of the leaks would be 'protected' with a stoma, with a rate of diverting ileostomy of up to 24.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with subjective clinical criteria, the use of a predictive model for anastomotic leak improves the selection of patients who would benefit from a diverting ileostomy without increasing the rate of stoma use.

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study.

BACKGROUND: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. RESULTS: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. CONCLUSION: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed.

Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. RESULTS: Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. CONCLUSION: The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.

Quality of life from cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: Investigating the association between disease burden and surgical complexity in the international, prospective, SOCQER-2 cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate quality of life (QoL) and association with surgical complexity and disease burden after surgical resection for advanced ovarian cancer in centres with variation in surgical approach. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre observational study. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer surgery centres in the UK, Kolkata, India, and Melbourne, Australia. SAMPLE: Patients undergoing surgical resection (with low, intermediate or high surgical complexity score, SCS) for late-stage ovarian cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: change in global score on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Secondary: EORTC ovarian cancer module (OV28), progression-free survival. RESULTS: Patients' preoperative disease burden and SCS varied between centres, confirming differences in surgical ethos. QoL response rates were 90% up to 18 months. Mean change from the pre-surgical baseline in the EORTC QLQ-C30 was 3.4 (SD 1.8, n = 88) in the low, 4.0 (SD 2.1, n = 55) in the intermediate and 4.3 (SD 2.1, n = 52) in the high-SCS group after 6 weeks (p = 0.048), and 4.3 (SD 2.1, n = 51), 5.1 (SD 2.2, n = 41) and 5.1 (SD 2.2, n = 35), respectively, after 12 months (p = 0.133). In a repeated-measures model, there were no clinically or statistically meaningful differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 global scores between the three SCS groups (p = 0.840), but there was a small statistically significant improvement in all groups over time (p < 0.001). The high-SCS group experienced small to moderate decreases in physical (p = 0.004), role (p = 0.016) and emotional (p = 0.001) function at 6 weeks post-surgery, which resolved by 6-12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The global QoL of patients undergoing low-, intermediate- and high-SCS surgery improved at 12 months after surgery and was no worse in patients undergoing extensive surgery. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Compared with surgery of lower complexity, extensive surgery does not result in poorer quality of life in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Survey on implementation of molecular testing in ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor: a national North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology/Young Academy of Gynecologic Oncology/Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie intergroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, BRCA testing has evolved as a standard management in epithelial ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the implementation of molecular testing and PARP inhibitor therapy in Germany. METHODS: The questionnaire contained 40 questions covering real-life data on genetic testing and the use of PARP inhibitors. It was divided into three main parts: basic demographics of respondents, genetic counseling and testing, and treatment with PARP inhibitors. The questionnaire was distributed via mail between August 2020 and May 2021. RESULTS: A total of 315 physicians participated in the survey, of whom 54.9% were specialized in the field of gynecologic oncology. Two-thirds of respondents (67.4%) stated that they tested more than 80% of patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer for BRCA mutation; however, only 42.5% of gynecologists who performed genetic counseling had an additional qualification in subject-specific genetic counseling, which is mandatory for predictive genetic testing in Germany. The main reasons for failure of BRCA testing were patient refusal (54.6%) and organizational or logistical issues (31.7%). Only 13.7% of respondents felt sufficiently equipped with supportive information material on patient counseling, whereas a high need for information material was indicated by 86.3% of the respondents. Molecular tumor profiling to infer homologous recombination (HR) deficiency status was provided by only 53.3% of institutions. PARP inhibitors were applied on a regular basis by 62.1% of respondents. The most important criteria for selection of appropriate PARP inhibitor therapy were the side effect profile (78.2%) and efficacy (71.2%). The majority of respondents (66.5%) preferred a combination of olaparib and bevacizumab over PARP inhibitors alone in the frontline setting. CONCLUSION: Adequate structure for BRCA/HR deficiency testing, and systematic education programs are needed to prevent delay in counseling and undertreatment of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. In Germany, a combination of olaparib and bevacizumab seems to be the preferred treatment in the first-line setting.

Ten years of live surgical broadcast at Charité-MAYO conferences (2010-2019): a systematic evaluation of the surgical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: The international Charité-MAYO Conference aims to promote international dialog on diagnostics, management, scientific breakthroughs, and state-of-the-art surgical procedures in gynecology and gynecologic oncology and senology. Live surgeries are a fundamental tool of interdisciplinary and international exchange of experts in their respective fields. Currently, there is a controversial and emotional debate about the true value, risks, and safety of live surgical broadcasts. The aim of the current study is to analyze peri-operative risks in patients who were operated live during the Charité-MAYO Conferences. METHODS: Live surgeries were performed by the core Charité team consisting of gynecologic oncologic surgeons, breast and plastic surgeons, partly in collaboration with visiting gynecologic oncologic surgeons. We performed a retrospective analysis of live surgeries performed during seven Charité-MAYO Conferences from 2010 to 2019 held in Berlin, Germany. Patients' files and tumor databases were analyzed as required and patients were contacted to update their long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients who were operated live were included. The types of surgery were as follows: urogynecologic procedures (n=13), breast surgery (n=21), and gynecologic oncology surgery for ovarian, uterine, vulvar or cervical cancer (n=35). Peri-operative complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Despite a high rate of complete resection and the high frequency of multivisceral procedures, the rate of peri-operative complications was within the range published in the literature. Time of surgery and length of intensive unit care and hospital stay did not differ from data acquired at the home institution. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, live surgeries appear to be safe when performed within a multidisciplinary setting without an increase in surgical morbidity and mortality compared with historical controls and without compromise of patients' outcome. This is the first analysis of its kind to set the basis for patient information and consent for this type of surgeries.