Treatments and outcomes in high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is rare and treated with diverse approaches. Limited published institutional data has yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: To compile global high-risk GTN (prognostic score ≥7) cohorts to summarise treatments and outcomes by disease characteristics and primary chemotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane were searched through March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Full-text manuscripts reporting mortality among ≥10 high-risk GTN patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Binomial proportions were summed, and random-effects meta-analyses performed. MAIN RESULTS: From 1137 records, we included 35 studies, representing 20 countries. Among 2276 unique high-risk GTN patients, 99.7% received chemotherapy, 35.8% surgery and 4.9% radiation. Mortality was 10.9% (243/2236; meta-analysis: 10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7-12%) and likelihood of complete response to primary chemotherapy was 79.7% (1506/1890; meta-analysis: 78%, 95% CI: 74-83%). Across 24 reporting studies, modern preferred chemotherapy (EMA/CO or EMA/EP) was associated with lower mortality (overall: 8.8 versus 9.5%; comparative meta-analysis: 8.1 versus 12.4%, OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90%, 14 studies) and higher likelihood of complete response (overall: 76.6 versus 72.8%; comparative meta-analysis: 75.9 versus 60.7%, OR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.06-8.35%, 14 studies), though studies focused on non-preferred regimens reported comparable outcomes. Mortality was increased for ultra-high-risk disease (30 versus 7.5% high-risk; meta-analysis OR 7.44, 95% CI: 4.29-12.9%) and disease following term delivery (20.8 versus 7.3% following molar pregnancy; meta-analysis OR 2.64, 95% CI: 1.10-6.31%). Relapse rate estimates ranged from 3 to 6%. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk GTN is responsive to several chemotherapy regimens, with EMA/CO or EMA/EP associated with improved outcomes. Mortality is increased in patients with ultra-high-risk, relapsed and post-term pregnancy disease.

Primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Endometrial cancer uncommonly presents at an advanced stage and little prospective evidence exists to guide the management thereof. We aimed to summarize the evidence about primary cytoreductive surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to September 11, 2020, using search terms representing the themes "endometrial cancer," "advanced stage," and "primary cytoreductive surgery." STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full-text, English reports that included ≥10 patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage endometrial cancer and that reported on the outcomes of primary cytoreductive surgery and survival rates based on the residual disease burden. METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened the studies and with disagreements between the reviewers resolved by a third reviewer. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The percentage of cases reaching maximal (no gross residual disease) and optimal (<1 cm or <2 cm residual disease) cytoreduction were assessed by summing binomials proportions, and the association with survival was assessed using an inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis of logarithmic hazard ratios. RESULTS: From 1219 unique records identified, 34 studies were selected for inclusion. Studies consisted of single or multi-institutional cohorts of patients collected over a period of 6 to 24 years and included various mixes of histologies (endometrioid, serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma) and disease stages (III or IV). In a meta-analysis of the extent of residual disease after primary cytoreductive surgery, we found that 52.1% of cases reached no gross residual disease status (n=18 studies; 1329 patients) and 75% reached <1 cm residual disease status (n=27 studies; 2343 patients). The proportion of cytoreduction for both thresholds was lower for studies of stage IV vs stage III to IV disease (41.4% vs 69.8% for no gross residual disease; 63.2% vs 82.2% for <1 cm residual disease) but did not vary notably by histology. In a meta-analysis of the reported hazard ratios, submaximal (any gross residual disease vs no gross residual disease) and suboptimal (≥1 cm vs <1 cm) cytoreduction thresholds were associated with worse progression-free survival (submaximal hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.21; I2=68%; suboptimal hazard ratio, 2.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-3.37; I2=63%) and overall survival rates (submaximal hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% confidence interval, 2.13-3.10; I2=1%; suboptimal hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.11; I2=15%). Sensitivity analyses limited to high-quality studies demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSION: Among cases of advanced stage endometrial cancer undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery, a significant proportion of patients are left with residual disease, which is associated with worse survival outcomes. Further investigations about the roles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary cytoreductive surgery in prospective trials is warranted in this population.

Understanding the needs and perspectives of ovarian cancer patients when considering PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy: Findings from two online community events.

Objective: The online environment is an ideal setting to understand how many women seek, receive, and understand information about cancer treatment. The purpose of this study was to understand women's needs and information-seeking around Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, an oral medication commonly prescribed as maintenance therapy at the conclusion of primary chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Methods: We held online discussion events with two social media communities, #gyncsm social media on Twitter and the Smart Patients ovarian cancer community, in November 2020, to sample ovarian cancer patient perceptions of, and information seeking about PARP inhibitors. Focused questions were presented to both communities, with participants able to answer and elaborate upon these questions, as well as to add their own comments or topics. Qualitative content analysis was performed on the transcripts from the two online events. Results: A total of 254 unique tweets and 71 messages were generated from the Twitter and Smart Patients conversations, respectively. The majority of the content from these two events could be categorized into five major themes: (1) concerns about side effects, (2) expectations of benefit, (3) desire for more information regarding clinical trials, ) (4) desire to better understand the relationship between mutation status and PARP inhibitor effectiveness, and (5) financial toxicity. Misinformation was rarely identified. Conclusions: Women with ovarian cancer who are engaged in online patient communities have numerous educational needs regarding PARP inhibitors. Given the complexity of clinical research on PARP inhibitors, patients would likely benefit from patient-centered educational tools.

Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE: Scoring systems have been developed to identify low risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) who may be candidates for outpatient management. We sought to validate the predictive accuracy of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score alone and in conjunction with alternative scoring systems for risk of complications among gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: We conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an academic gynecologic oncology service for FN. We examined the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of three scoring systems (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), CISNE cut-off 1 (Low risk = 0), CISNE cut-off 2 (Low risk = <3)), and the combination of MASCC and CISNE to predict complications: inpatient death, ICU admission, hypotension, respiratory/renal failure, mental status change, cardiac failure, bleeding, and arrhythmia. RESULTS: Fifty patients were identified for study inclusion. No low-risk CISNE patients died during hospitalization. Fewer CISNE low-risk patients experienced complications compared to high-risk patients, regardless of cut-off. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the scoring systems were: CISNE 1-37.1%, 86.7%, 86.7%, 37.1%; CISNE 2-85.7%, 46.7%, 78.9%, 58.3%; MASCC-82.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, 62.5%; MASCC + CISNE 1-37.1%, 93.3%, 92.9%, 38.9%; MASCC + CISNE 2-80%, 73.3%, 87.5%, 61.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The CISNE scoring system is an appropriate tool for the identification of patients with gynecologic cancers and FN who may benefit from close outpatient management. CISNE cut-off 2 performed comparably to the MASCC, but CISNE cut-off 1 had a higher specificity and positive predictive value.