Search

In this article the author discusses which of the two treatments such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) is the best to use as a standard care for women with endometrial cancer. The authors examined the results of the two trials, PORTEC-2 and ASTEC which shows that VBT is as efficient as EBRT in the prevention of vaginal recurrence. The authors suggest that the PORTEC-2 trial's results are credible and clinically important.

The authors reply to letters written in response to the article " Efficacy of Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): A Randomised Study," published in the January 10, 2009 issue.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the commonest cause of gynaecological cancer-associated death. The disease typically presents in postmenopausal women, with a few months of abdominal pain and distension. Most women have advanced disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage III), for which the standard of care remains surgery and platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy. Although this treatment can be curative for most patients with early stage disease, most women with advanced disease will develop many episodes of recurrent disease with progressively shorter disease-free intervals. These episodes culminate in chemoresistance and ultimately bowel obstruction, the most frequent cause of death. For women whose disease continues to respond to platinum-based drugs, the disease can often be controlled for 5 years or more. Targeted treatments such as antiangiogenic drugs or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors offer potential for improved survival. The efficacy of screening, designed to detect the disease at an earlier and curable stage remains unproven, with key results expected in 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The international standard of care for women with suspected advanced ovarian cancer is surgical debulking followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to establish whether use of platinum-based primary chemotherapy followed by delayed surgery was an effective and safe alternative treatment regimen. Methods In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) undertaken in 87 hospitals in the UK and New Zealand, we enrolled women with suspected stage III or IV ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned women (1:1) either to undergo primary surgery followed by six cycles of chemotherapy, or to three cycles of primary chemotherapy, then surgery, followed by three more cycles of completion chemotherapy. Each 3-week cycle consisted of carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m², or an alternative carboplatin combination regimen, or carboplatin monotherapy. We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a random element, and stratified participants according to the randomising centre, largest radiological tumour size, clinical stage, and prespecified chemotherapy regimen. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be less than 1·18. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN74802813, and is closed to new participants. Findings Between March 1, 2004, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 552 women to treatment. Of the 550 women who were eligible, 276 were assigned to primary surgery and 274 to primary chemotherapy. All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary surgery and 253 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis. As of May 31, 2014, 451 deaths had occurred: 231 in the primary-surgery group versus 220 in the primary-chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 22·6 months in the primary-surgery group versus 24·1 months in primary chemotherapy. The HR for death was 0·87 in favour of primary chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0·98 (95% CI 0·72–1·05). Grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse events and deaths within 28 days after surgery were more common in the primary-surgery group than in the primary-chemotherapy group (60 [24%] of 252 women vs 30 [14%] of 209, p=0·0007, and 14 women [6%] vs 1 woman [<1%], p=0·001). The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse event was haemorrhage in both groups (8 women [3%] in the primary-surgery group vs 14 [6%] in the primary-chemotherapy group). 110 (49%) of 225 women receiving primary surgery and 102 (40%) of 253 receiving primary chemotherapy had a grade 3 or 4 chemotherapy related toxic effect (p=0·0654), mostly uncomplicated neutropenia (20% and 16%, respectively). One fatal toxic effect, neutropenic sepsis, occurred in the primary-chemotherapy group. Interpretation In women with stage III or IV ovarian cancer, survival with primary chemotherapy is non-inferior to primary surgery. In this study population, giving primary chemotherapy before surgery is an acceptable standard of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although adolescent girls are the main population for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, adult women who remain at risk of cervical cancer can also be vaccinated. We report data from the interim analysis of the ongoing VIVIANE study, the aim of which is to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women. Methods In this phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy women older than 25 years to the HPV 16/18 vaccine or control (1:1), via an internet-based system with an algorithm process that accounted for region, age stratum, baseline HPV DNA status, HPV 16/18 serostatus, and cytology. Enrolment was age-stratified, with about 45% of participants in each of the 26–35 and 36–45 years age strata and 10% in the 46 years and older stratum. Up to 15% of women in each age stratum could have a history of HPV infection or disease. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. The primary analysis was done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, which consists of women who received all three vaccine or control doses, had negative or low-grade cytology at baseline, and had no history of HPV disease. Secondary analyses included vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types. Mean follow-up time was 40·3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047. Findings The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit for the present analysis took place on Dec 10, 2010; 5752 women were included in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2881 vaccine, n=2871 control), and 4505 in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2264 vaccine, n=2241 control). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ was significant in all age groups combined (81·1%, 97·7% CI 52·1–94·0), in the 26–35 years age group (83·5%, 45·0–96·8), and in the 36–45 years age group (77·2%, 2·8–96·9); no cases were seen in women aged 46 years and older. Vaccine efficacy against atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater associated with HPV 16/18 was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (79·1%, 97·7% CI 27·6–95·9) and HPV 45 (76·9%, 18·5–95·6]) Serious adverse events occurred in 285 (10%) of 2881 women in the vaccine group and 267 (9%) of 2871 in the control group; five (<1%) and eight (<1%) of these events, respectively, were believed to be related to vaccination. Interpretation In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine is efficacious against infections and cervical abnormalities associated with the vaccine types, as well as infections with the non-vaccine HPV types 31 and 45. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus infection. Most human papillomavirus infection is harmless and dears spontaneously but persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (especially type 16) can cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, penis, and oropharynx. The virus exclusively infects epithelium and produces new viral particles only in fully mature epithelial cells. Human papillomavirus disrupts normal cell-cycle control, promoting uncontrolled cell division and the accumulation of genetic damage. Two effective prophylactic vaccines composed of human papillomavirus type 16 and 18, and human papillomavirus type 16,18, 6, and 11 virus-like particles have been introduced in many developed countries as a primary prevention strategy. Human papillomavirus testing is clinically valuable for secondary prevention in triaging low-grade cytology and as a test of cure after treatment. More sensitive than cytology, primary screening by human papillomavirus testing could enable screening intervals to be extended. If these prevention strategies can be implemented in developing countries, many thousands of lives could be saved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the findings of a large study of the effectiveness of a human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) in the prevention of cervical cancer in young wome. The survey's double bling, randomized control methodology is described. The survey found that the vaccine had a 90 percent success rate in preventing the development of cervical cancer in women who had certain varieties of the HP virus, and there was no significant difference in safety between them and the patients in the control group. The authors conclude the vaccine could be recommended for treatment, but caution that more time is needed to accurately measure its effectiveness in preventing the disease.

Background: Results of observational studies suggest that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), but those of randomised trials do not indicate a lower risk in women who use oestrogen plus progestagen. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether or not unopposed oestrogen reduces the risk of further cardiac events in postmenopausal women who survive a first myocardial infarction.Methods: The study was a randomised, blinded, placebo controlled, secondary prevention trial of postmenopausal women, age 50-69 years (n=1017) who had survived a first myocardial infarction. Individuals were recruited from 35 hospitals in England and Wales. Women received either one tablet of oestradiol valerate (2 mg; n=513) or placebo (n=504), daily for 2 years. Primary outcomes were reinfarction or cardiac death, and all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were uterine bleeding, endometrial cancer, stroke or other embolic events, and fractures.Findings: Frequency of reinfarction or cardiac death did not differ between treatment groups at 24 months (rate ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.70-1.41, p=0.97). Similarly, the reduction in all-cause mortality between those who took oestrogen and those on placebo was not significant (0.79, 0.50-1.27, p=0.34). The relative risk of any death (0.56, 0.23-1.33) and cardiac death (0.33, 0.11-1.01) was lowest at 3 months post-recruitment.Interpretation: Oestradiol valerate does not reduce the overall risk of further cardiac events in postmenopausal women who have survived a myocardial infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several letters to the editor are presented in response to the article "Survival Effect of Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): A Retrospective Cohort Analysis," by Kato Y. Todo and colleagues published in a 2010 issue, along with the authors' reply.

A response by Guglielmo Ronco and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "Efficacy of HPV-based Screening for Prevention of Invasive Cervical Cancer: Follow-up of Four European Randomised Controlled Trials," in the February 8, 2014 issue is presented.