Search

Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESP In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined. publishersversion published

PURPOSE The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN). METHODS GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences. RESULTS From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL ( P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL. CONCLUSION Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL.

Purpose Current guidelines for surveillance strategy in cervical cancer are rigid, recommending the same strategy for all survivors. The aim of this study was to develop a robust model allowing for individualised surveillance based on a patient's risk profile. Methods Data of 4343 early-stage patients with cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the international SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical Cancer) consortium. The Cox proportional hazards model predicting disease-free survival (DFS) was developed and internally validated. The risk score, derived from regression coefficients of the model, stratified the cohort into significantly distinctive risk groups. On its basis, the annual recurrence risk model (ARRM) was calculated. Results Five variables were included in the prognostic model: maximal pathologic tumour diameter; tumour histotype; grade; number of positive pelvic lymph nodes; and lymphovascular space invasion. Five risk groups significantly differing in prognosis were identified with a five-year DFS of 97.5%, 94.7%, 85.2% and 63.3% in increasing risk groups, whereas a two-year DFS in the highest risk group equalled 15.4%. Based on the ARRM, the annual recurrence risk in the lowest risk group was below 1% since the beginning of follow-up and declined below 1% at years three, four and >5 in the medium-risk groups. In the whole cohort, 26% of recurrences appeared at the first year of the follow-up, 48% by year two and 78% by year five. Conclusion The ARRM represents a potent tool for tailoring the surveillance strategy in early-stage patients with cervical cancer based on the patient's risk status and respective annual recurrence risk. It can easily be used in routine clinical settings internationally.

Objective Based on the SUCCOR study database, our primary objective was to identify the independent clinical pathological variables associated with the risk of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Our secondary goal was to design and validate a risk predictive index (RPI) for classifying patients depending on the risk of recurrence. Methods Overall, 1116 women were included from January 2013 to December 2014. We randomly divided our sample into two cohorts: discovery and validation cohorts. The test group was used to identify the independent variables associated with relapse, and with these variables, we designed our RPI. The index was applied to calculate a relapse risk score for each participant in the validation group. Results A previous cone biopsy was the most significant independent variable that lowered the rate of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.60). Additionally, patients with a tumor diameter >2 cm on preoperative imaging assessment (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.33–3.5) and operated by the minimally invasive approach (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00–2.57) were more likely to have a recurrence. Based on these findings, patients in the validation cohort were classified according to the RPI of low, medium, or high risk of relapse, with rates of 3.4%, 9.8%, and 21.3% observed in each group, respectively. With a median follow-up of 58 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 97.2% for the low-risk group, 88.0% for the medium-risk group, and 80.5% for the high-risk group (p < 0.001). Conclusion Previous conization to radical hysterectomy was the most powerful protective variable of relapse. Our risk predictor index was validated to identify patients at risk of recurrence.

BackgroundVaginal brachytherapy is currently recommended as adjuvant treatment in patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer to maximize local control and has only mild side effects and no or limited impact on quality of life. However, there is still considerable overtreatment and also some undertreatment, which may be reduced by tailoring adjuvant treatment to the patients’ risk of recurrence based on molecular tumor characteristics.Primary objectivesTo compare the rates of vaginal recurrence in women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer, treated after surgery with molecular-integrated risk profile-based recommendations for either observation, vaginal brachytherapy or external pelvic beam radiotherapy or with standard adjuvant vaginal brachytherapyStudy hypothesisAdjuvant treatment based on a molecular-integrated risk profile provides similar local control and recurrence-free survival as current standard adjuvant brachytherapy in patients with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer, while sparing many patients the morbidity of adjuvant treatment and reducing healthcare costs.Trial designA multicenter, international phase III randomized trial (2:1) of molecular-integrated risk profile-based adjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy (standard arm).Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaWomen aged 18 years and over with a histological diagnosis of high-intermediate risk endometrioid endometrial cancer after total abdominal or laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. High-intermediate risk factors are defined as: (i) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IA (with invasion) and grade 3; (ii) stage IB grade 1 or 2 with age ≥60 and/or lymph-vascular space invasion; (iii) stage IB, grade 3 without lymph-vascular space invasion; or (iv) stage II (microscopic and grade 1).EndpointsThe primary endpoint is vaginal recurrence. Secondary endpoints are recurrence-free and overall survival; pelvic and distant recurrence; 5-year vaginal control (including treatment for relapse); adverse events and patient-reported symptoms and quality of life; and endometrial cancer-related healthcare costs.Sample size500 eligible and evaluable patients.Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting resultsEstimated date for completing accrual will be late 2021. Estimated date for presentation of (first) results is expected in 2023.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03469674) and ISRCTN (11659025).

Hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-beta (HNF1B) is a transcription factor crucial for the development of several tissues, and a promising biomarker of certain solid tumours. Thus far, two HNF1B alternative splicing variants (ASVs) have been described, however, the complete spectrum, prevalence and role of HNF1B ASVs in tumorigenesis are unclear. Considering the equivocal data about HNF1B ASVs and expression presented in literature, our aim was to characterize the spectrum of HNF1B mRNA splicing variants across different tissues. Here, we characterize HNF1B ASVs with high sensitivity in carcinomas of the uterine corpus, large intestine, kidney, pancreas, and prostate, with selected paired healthy tissues, using the previously described multiplex PCR and NGS approach. We identified 45 ASVs, of which 43 were novel. The spectrum and relative quantity of expressed ASVs mRNA differed among the analysed tissue types. Two known (3p, Δ7_8) and two novel (Δ7, Δ8) ASVs with unknown biological functions were detected in all the analysed tissues in a higher proportion. Our study reveals the wide spectrum of HNF1B ASVs in selected tissues. Characterization of the HNF1B ASVs is an important prerequisite for further expression studies to delineate the HNF1B splicing pattern, potential ASVs functional impact, and eventual refinement of HNF1B’s biomarker role.

Background: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60–80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. Findings: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52–64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8–32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3–9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5–7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49–0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7–7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5–6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52–0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). Interpretation: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. Funding: Clovis Oncology.

Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) is a relatively rare malignancy but is the fifth-leading cause of cancer-related death in women, largely reflecting early, prediagnosis dissemination of malignant disease to the peritoneum. At odds with other neoplasms, EOC is virtually insensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, correlating with a tumor microenvironment that exhibits poor infiltration by immune cells and active immunosuppression. Here, we comparatively summarize the humoral and cellular features of primary and metastatic EOC, comparatively analyze their impact on disease outcome, and propose measures to alter them in support of treatment sensitivity and superior patient survival. ispartof: JOURNAL FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CANCER vol:9 issue:10 ispartof: location:England status: published

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG), the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors, including imaging techniques, biomarkers, and prediction models. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE nominated a multidisciplinary international group, including expert practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and management of patients with ovarian cancer (19 experts across Europe). A patient representative was also included in the group. To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised. Preliminary statements were drafted based on the review of the relevant literature. During a conference call, the whole group discussed each preliminary statement and a first round of voting was carried out. Statements were removed when a consensus among group members was not obtained. The voters had the opportunity to provide comments/suggestions with their votes. The statements were then revised accordingly. Another round of voting was carried out according to the same rules to allow the whole group to evaluate the revised version of the statements. The group achieved consensus on 18 statements. This Consensus Statement presents these ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE statements on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors and the assessment of carcinomatosis, together with a summary of the evidence supporting each statement. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER vol:31 issue:7 pages:961-982 ispartof: location:England status: published

IntroductionSentinel lymph node dissection is widely used in the staging of endometrial cancer. Variation in surgical techniques potentially impacts diagnostic accuracy and oncologic outcomes, and poses barriers to the comparison of outcomes across institutions or clinical trial sites. Standardization of surgical technique and surgical quality assessment tools are critical to the conduct of clinical trials. By identifying mandatory and prohibited steps of sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in endometrial cancer, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a competency assessment tool for use in surgical quality assurance.MethodsA Delphi methodology was applied, included 35 expert gynecological oncology surgeons from 16 countries. Interviews identified key steps and tasks which were rated mandatory, optional, or prohibited using questionnaires. Using the surgical steps for which consensus was achieved, a competency assessment tool was developed and subjected to assessments of validity and reliability.ResultsSeventy percent consensus agreement standardized the specific mandatory, optional, and prohibited steps of SLN dissection for endometrial cancer and informed the development of a competency assessment tool. Consensus agreement identified 21 mandatory and three prohibited steps to complete a SLN dissection. The competency assessment tool was used to rate surgical quality in three preselected videos, demonstrating clear separation in the rating of the skill level displayed with mean skills summary scores differing significantly between the three videos (F score=89.4; PConclusionSpecific mandatory and prohibited steps of SLN dissection in endometrial cancer have been identified and validated based on consensus among a large number of international experts. A competency assessment tool is now available and can be used for surgeon selection in clinical trials and for ongoing, prospective quality assurance in routine clinical care.

Summary Background Few effective second-line treatments exist for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tisotumab vedotin, a tissue factor-directed antibody–drug conjugate, in this patient population. Methods This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was done across 35 academic centres, hospitals, and community practices in Europe and the USA. The study included patients aged 18 years or older who had recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer; disease progression on or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards); who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease; had measurable disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1); and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received 2·0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) tisotumab vedotin intravenously once every 3 weeks until disease progression (determined by the independent review committee) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate based on RECIST (version 1.1), as assessed by the independent review committee. Activity and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of the drug. This study is ongoing with recruitment completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438396. Findings 102 patients were enrolled between June 12, 2018, and April 11, 2019; 101 patients received at least one dose of tisotumab vedotin. Median follow-up at the time of analysis was 10·0 months (IQR 6·1–13·0). The confirmed objective response rate was 24% (95% CI 16–33), with seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events included alopecia (38 [38%] of 101 patients), epistaxis (30 [30%]), nausea (27 [27%]), conjunctivitis (26 [26%]), fatigue (26 [26%]), and dry eye (23 [23%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were reported in 28 (28%) patients and included neutropenia (three [3%] patients), fatigue (two [2%]), ulcerative keratitis (two [2%]), and peripheral neuropathies (two [2%] each with sensory, motor, sensorimotor, and neuropathy peripheral). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients, the most common of which included peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy (two [2%] patients) and pyrexia (two [2%]). One death due to septic shock was considered by the investigator to be related to therapy. Three deaths unrelated to treatment were reported, including one case of ileus and two unknown causes. Interpretation Tisotumab vedotin showed clinically meaningful and durable antitumour activity with a manageable and tolerable safety profile in women with previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Given the poor prognosis for this patient population and the low activity of current therapies in this setting, tisotumab vedotin, if approved, would represent a new treatment for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Funding Genmab, Seagen, Gynaecologic Oncology Group, and European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups.

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

We thank Isabelle Thomassin-Nagarra et al for their interest in the ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE consensus statement on the pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors. This statement is based on a careful review of the relevant literature and available evidence as well as on structured discussions between

IntroductionComprehensive updated information on cervical cancer surgical treatment in Europe is scarce.ObjectiveTo evaluate baseline characteristics of women with early cervical cancer and to analyze the outcomes of the ESGO quality indicators after radical hysterectomy in the SUCCOR database.MethodsThe SUCCOR database consisted of 1272 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) between January 2013 and December 2014. After exclusion criteria, the final sample included 1156 patients. This study first described the clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up variables of this population and then analyzed the outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) after radical hysterectomy. Surgical-related ESGO quality indicators were assessed and the accomplishment of the stated recommendations was verified.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 47.1 years (SD 10.8), with a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m2 (SD 4.9). A total of 423 (36.6%) patients had a previous cone biopsy. Tumor size (clinical examination) ConclusionsIn this European cohort, the rate of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy is higher than for most similar patients reported in the literature. The majority of centers were already following the European recommendations even 5 years prior to the ESGO quality indicator implementations.

BACKGROUND: Up to 26% of patients with early-stage cervical cancer experience relapse after primary surgery. However, little is known about which factors influence prognosis following disease recurrence. Therefore, our aims were to determine post-recurrence disease-specific survival (PR-DSS) and to identify respective prognostic factors for PR-DSS.METHODS: Data from 528 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who relapsed after primary surgery performed between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the SCANN study (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer). Factors related to the primary disease and recurrence were combined in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to predict PR-DSS.RESULTS: The 5-year PR-DSS was 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.7%-44.5%), median disease-free interval between primary surgery and recurrence (DFI1) was 1.5 years, and median survival after recurrence was 2.5 years. Six significant variables were identified in the multivariable analysis and were used to construct the prognostic model. Two were related to primary treatment (largest tumour size and lymphovascular space invasion) and four to recurrence (DFI1, age at recurrence, presence of symptoms, and recurrence type). The C-statistic after 10-fold cross-validation of prognostic model reached 0.701 (95% CI 0.675-0.727). Three risk-groups with significantly differing prognoses were identified, with 5-year PR-DSS rates of 81.8%, 44.6%, and 12.7%.CONCLUSIONS: We developed the robust model of PR-DSS to stratify patients with relapsed cervical cancer according to risk profiles using six routinely recorded prognostic markers. The model can be utilised in clinical practice to aid decision-making on the strategy of recurrence management, and to better inform the patients.

In centers with access to high-end ultrasound machines and expert sonologists, ultrasound is used to detect metastases in regional lymph nodes from melanoma, breast cancer and vulvar cancer. There is, as yet, no international consensus on ultrasound assessment of lymph nodes in any disease or medical condition. The lack of standardized ultrasound nomenclature to describe lymph nodes makes it difficult to compare results from different ultrasound studies and to find reliable ultrasound features for distinguishing non-infiltrated lymph nodes from lymph nodes infiltrated by cancer or lymphoma cells. The Vulvar International Tumor Analysis (VITA) collaborative group consists of gynecologists, gynecologic oncologists and radiologists with expertise in gynecologic cancer, particularly in the ultrasound staging and treatment of vulvar cancer. The work herein is a consensus opinion on terms, definitions and measurements which may be used to describe inguinal lymph nodes on grayscale and color/power Doppler ultrasound. The proposed nomenclature need not be limited to the description of inguinal lymph nodes as part of vulvar cancer staging; it can be used to describe peripheral lymph nodes in general, as well as non-peripheral (i.e. parietal or visceral) lymph nodes if these can be visualized clearly. The association between the ultrasound features described here and histopathological diagnosis has not yet been established. VITA terms and definitions lay the foundations for prospective studies aiming to identify ultrasound features typical of metastases and other pathology in lymph nodes and studies to elucidate the role of ultrasound in staging of vulvar and other malignancies. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Purpose. We aimed to compare the learning curves of an ultrasound trainee (obstetrics and gynecology resident) and a radiology trainee when assessing pelvic endometriosis. Methods. Consecutive patients with suspected endometriosis were prospectively enrolled in a tertiary center. They underwent an ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively, which was reported according to the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group consensus. Trainees reported on deep endometriosis (DE), endometriomas, frozen pelvis, and adenomyosis. Using the Kappa agreement, their findings were compared against laparoscopy/histology and expert findings. The learning curve was considered positive when performance improved over time and indeterminate in all other cases. Results. Reports from thirty-five women were divided chronologically into 3 equal blocks to assess the learning curve. For ultrasound, trainee versus expert showed a positive learning curve in overall pelvic DE assessment. There was an excellent agreement for adenomyosis (Kappa=1.00, p=0.09), frozen pelvis (Kappa=0.90, p=0.01), bowel (Kappa=1.00, p=0.01), and bladder DE assessment (Kappa=1.00, p=0.01). Endometrioma and uterosacral ligament assessment showed an indeterminate curve. For radiology, trainee versus expert showed a positive curve when detecting adenomyosis (Kappa=0.42, p=0.09) and bladder DE (Kappa=1.00, p=0.01). The assessment of endometriomas, frozen pelvis, overall pelvic DE, bowel, and uterosacral ligament DE showed indeterminate curve. Agreement between trainees and laparoscopy/histology showed a positive curve for bladder (both) and frozen pelvis (ultrasound only). Conclusion. A positive learning curve can be seen in some areas of pelvic endometriosis mapping after as little as 35 cases, but a bigger caseload is required to demonstrate the curve in full. The ultrasound trainee had positive learning curves in more anatomical locations (bladder, adenomyosis, overall bowel DE, frozen pelvis) than the radiology trainee (bladder, adenomyosis), which could be down to individual factors, differences in training, or the imaging method itself.

ispartof: ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY vol:55 issue:6 pages:879-885 ispartof: location:England status: published

The quality of pathological assessment is crucial for the safety of patients with cervical cancer if pelvic lymph node dissection is to be replaced by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. Central pathology review of SLN pathological ultrastaging was conducted in the prospective SENTIX/European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial (ENGOT)-CX2 study. All specimens from at least two patients per site were submitted for the central review. For cases with major or critical deviations, the sites were requested to submit all samples from all additional patients for second-round assessment. From the group of 300 patients, samples from 83 cases from 37 sites were reviewed in the first round. Minor, major, critical, and no deviations were identified in 28%, 19%, 14%, and 39% of cases, respectively. Samples from 26 patients were submitted for the second-round review, with only two major deviations found. In conclusion, a high rate of major or critical deviations was identified in the first round of the central pathology review (28% of samples). This reflects a substantial heterogeneity in current practice, despite trial protocol requirements. The importance of the central review conducted prospectively at the early phase of the trial is demonstrated by a substantial improvement of SLN ultrastaging quality in the second-round review. ispartof: CANCERS vol:12 issue:5 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

ObjectiveSentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has been increasingly used in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. It appears in guidelines as an alternative option to systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy. The evidence about safety is, however, based mostly on retrospective studies, in which SLN was combined with systematic lymphadenectomy.Materials and methodsSENTIX is a prospective multicenter trial aiming to prove that less-radical surgery with SLN is non-inferior to treatment with systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy. The primary end point is recurrence rate; the secondary end point is the prevalence of lower-leg lymphedema and symptomatic pelvic lymphocele. The reference recurrence rate was set up conservatively at 7% at 24 months after treatment. With a sample size of 300 patients treated per protocol, the trial is powered to detect a non-inferiority margin of 5% (90% power, p = 0.05) for recurrence rate, 30% reduction in the prevalence of symptomatic lymphocele or lower-leg lymphedema, with reference rates of 30% and 6% at 12 months (p = 0.025, Bonferroni correction). The patients eligible for SENTIX have stage IA1/LVSI+, IA2, IB1 (IB1), or a positive intra-operative SLN assessment. The quality of SLN pathology evaluation will be assessed by central review. Three interim safety analyses are pre-planned when 30, 60, 150 patients complete 12 months' follow-up.ConclusionsThe first patient was enrolled into the study in June 2016 and, by June 2018, 340 patients had been enrolled. The first analysis of secondary outcomes should be available in 2019 and the oncological outcome of 300 patients at the end of 2021. The trial is registered as a CEEGOG trial (CEEGOG CX-01), ENGOT trial (ENGOT-Cx 2), and at the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02494063).

PURPOSE A phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251 ) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician’s choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS Of 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Olaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Background The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow‐up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID‐19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications. Methods A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID‐19‐related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations. Findings We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard‐copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients’ age was 55 years (range: 18–89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID‐19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID‐19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow‐up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% (n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID‐19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS Anxiety and Depression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3–12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8–13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS‐depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients’ anxiety. Interpretation Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID‐19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients’ communication and education., Gynaecological cancer patients in Europe appeal for more transparency and continuation of high standard oncologic care even in times of crisis like the COVID‐19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy has been widely used in the surgical treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer, although supporting evidence from randomized clinical trials has been limited. METHODS: We intraoperatively randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB through IV) who had undergone macroscopically complete resection and had normal lymph nodes both before and during surgery to either undergo or not undergo lymphadenectomy. All centers had to qualify with regard to surgical skills before participation in the trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 647 patients underwent randomization from December 2008 through January 2012, were assigned to undergo lymphadenectomy (323 patients) or not undergo lymphadenectomy (324), and were included in the analysis. Among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, the median number of removed nodes was 57 (35 pelvic and 22 paraaortic nodes). The median overall survival was 69.2 months in the no-lymphadenectomy group and 65.5 months in the lymphadenectomy group (hazard ratio for death in the lymphadenectomy group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.34; P = 0.65), and median progression-free survival was 25.5 months in both groups (hazard ratio for progression or death in the lymphadenectomy group, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.34; P = 0.29). Serious postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the lymphadenectomy group (e.g., incidence of repeat laparotomy, 12.4% vs. 6.5% [P = 0.01]; mortality within 60 days after surgery, 3.1% vs. 0.9% [P = 0.049]). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had undergone intraabdominal macroscopically complete resection and had normal lymph nodes both before and during surgery was not associated with longer overall or progression-free survival than no lymphadenectomy and was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications. (Funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Austrian Science Fund; LION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00712218.). ispartof: NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE vol:380 issue:9 pages:822-832 ispartof: location:United States status: published

ObjectivesTo assess the survival of patients who have received an operation for recurrent cervical and endometrial cancer and to determine prognostic variables for improved oncologic outcome.MethodsA retrospective multicenter analysis of the medical records of 518 patients with cervical (N = 288) or endometrial cancer (N = 230) who underwent surgery for disease recurrence and who had completed at least 1 year of follow-up.ResultsThe median survival reached 57 months for patients with cervical cancer and 113 months for patients with endometrial cancer after surgical treatment of recurrence (p = 0.036). Histological sub-type had a significant impact on overall survival, with the best outcome in endometrial endometrioid cancer (121 months), followed by cervical squamous cell carcinoma, cervical adenocarcinoma, or other types of endometrial cancer (81 vs 35 vs 35 months; pConclusionLong-term survival can be achieved via secondary cytoreductive surgery in selected patients with recurrent cervical and endometrial cancer. An excellent outcome is possible even if the recurrence site is located in the lymph nodes. The possibility of achieving complete resection should be the main criterion for patient selection.