Search

Background: To evaluate outcomes of laparoscopic retroperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy for stage 1b3-3b cervical cancer., Methods: Pathology databases searched for all para-aortic lymphadenectomy cases 2005-2016. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse baseline characteristics, cox models for treatment affect after accounting for variables, and Kaplan Meier curves for survival (STATA v15)., Results: 191 patients had 1b3-3b cervical cancer of which 110 patients had Para-aortic lymphadenectomy. 8 (7.3%) patients stage 1b3, 82 (74.6%) stage 2b, and 20 (18.1%) stage 3b cervical cancer. Mean lymph node count 11.7 (SD7.6). The intra-operative and post-operative 30 day complication rates were 8.8% (CI: 4.3%, 15.7%) and 5.3% (CI: 1.9%, 11.2%) respectively.Para-aortic nodes were apparently positive on CT/MRI in 5/110 (5%) cases. Cancer was found in 10 (8.9%, CI: 4.3%, 15.7%) cases on histology, all received extended field radiotherapy. Only 2 were identified on pre-operative CT/MRI imaging. 3 of 10 suspected node-positive cases on CT/MRI had negative histology. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy led to alteration in staging and radiotherapy management in 8 (8%, CI: 3.7%, 14.6%) patients. Mean overall survival 42.81 months (SD = 31.79 months). Survival was significantly higher for women undergoing PAN (50.57 (SD 30.7) months) compared to those who didn't (31.27 (SD 32.5) months)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy is an acceptable procedure which can guide treatment in women with locally advanced cervical cancer.

Background: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence., Results: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons., Limitations: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges., Conclusions: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice ( strong recommendation ). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation) . Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy ( strong recommendation )., Future Work: More randomised controlled trials are necessary., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objective: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers., Methods: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032., Results: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms., Conclusions: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest UM had stock ownership awarded by University College London (UCL) between until October 2021 in Abcodia, which holds the licence for ROCA. She and MP have received grants and AGM, MB, JK and AR have been funded by grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and The Eve Appeal. UM has also received grants from UK Innovate and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia and salary support from UCL Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. UM, AGM and SA report funded research collaborations with industry - iLOF (intelligent Lab on Fiber), RNA Guardian, Micronoma, MercyBio Analytics and academics -Cambridge University, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Imperial College London, University of Innsbruck and Dana Farber USA. UM holds patent number EP10178345.4 for Breast Cancer Diagnostics. AGM is a member of ACED Gynaecological Cancer Working Group and is ACED Co-Director Research Domain Trials. MP was an Associate Member of the EME funding committee while the project was active. SJS reports that Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has co-licensed software for ROCA to Abcodia, now owned by GenInCode, with MGH licence revenue to MGH and research laboratories per MGH institutional policies. SJS receives grant support from National Cancer Institute (USA) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK). He is paid for service on the clinical advisory board for Guardant Health. He serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for LUNGevity. He has stock options from SISCAPA Assay Technologies for participation on its Scientific Advisory Board. IJJ reports grants from Eve Appeal Charity, MRC, Cancer Research UK, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. He co-invented the ROCA in 1995. Massachusetts General Hospital and Queen Mary University of London granted a licence for the ROCA to Abcodia in 2014. IJJ is non-executive director, shareholder, and consultant to Abcodia and has rights to royalties from sales of the ROCA. He founded (1985), was a trustee of (2012–14), and is now an Emeritus trustee (2015–present) of The Eve Appeal, one of the funding agencies for UKCTOCS. LF reports MRC funding for the psychosocial arm of the UKCTOCS study 2001–13, paid to University of Sussex. NS received honoraria from Astra-Zeneca-MPC and GlaxoSmithKline for participation in advisory boards. AMcG was a member of NIHR HTA and EME Editoral Board (2012 to 2022). RM reports funding from The Eve Appeal, Rosetrees Trust, Barts Charity, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Ovacure, British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS), GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Honoraria from Astrazeneca and EGL. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)