Search

STUDY QUESTION How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed? SUMMARY ANSWER Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l. advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Competing interests: IR-C has reported advisory boards for Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, Blueprint, BMS, ESAÏ, Daichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Macrogenics, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro and Clovis, and grants for traveling from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Chugai and GSK; PG-C has reported Institution research grants from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Ther Inc, Glaxo, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, Inhibrx Inc, Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, PTC Ther, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Rain Oncology, and SpringWorks Ther; RJ has reported advisory boards for Adaptimmune, Astex, Athenex, Bayer, Borhringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizume, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Immunicum, Karma Oncology, Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, PharmaMar, Springworks, SynOx, Tracon, and Upto Date; RS has reported grants for traveling from ParmaMar; FA has reported advisory boards for MiMark; J-YB has reported advisory boards for Deciphera, Bayer and Roche, and grants for traveling from OSE Pharma (unrelated); JM-B has reported advisory boards for Asofarma, Tecnofarma, FarmaMar, GSK, Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Roche, Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar; AC has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca and EISAI, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar, Merck and AstraZeneca; APDT has reported advisory boards for GSK, Boehringer and Novartis Oncology, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar; MLH has reported advisory boards for Aadi; PH has reported advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and PharmaMar, and grants for traveling from Boehringer Ingelheim, PharmaMar, and Lighthouse PTC; PP has reported advisory boards for PharmaMar and MSD, and grants for traveling from Amgen, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, and MSD; ARAR has reported research support (institutional) from 23&Me, Abbisko, AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biontech, Blueprint Medicine, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cogent Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Frontier Biopharma, Gilead, GSK, Iterion Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MedImmune, Medison, Merck, Neoleukin, Novartis, Pfizer, Polaris, Roche/Genentech, Rain Therapeutics, and Symphogen, expert testimony/advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Medison, DSMB (self) for Inhibrx, and honorarium (self) from Journal of Clinical Oncology, Medison and UpToDate; JS has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Novocure, Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH, Seagan, Bayer Vital, GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, PharmaMar, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Immunogen, Tubulis GmbH, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grants for traveling from AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Novocure, Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH, Seagan, Bayer Vital, GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH; PharmaMar, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Immunogen, Tubulis GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo; WvH has reported advisory boards for Sanofi, Belpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Novartis, and grants for traveling from Sanofi; MF has reported consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, and Incyclix, payment for honoraria for lectures, presentations, spearkers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, and Limbic, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AGITG IDSMB, and ENDO-3, and research grants (institution) from AstraZeneca, Beigene and Novartis; SCr, FMF, DF, IZ, SCh, RH, J-WK, SIK, MMM, and FP have reported no conflicts of interest.

Introduction: Assessment of retroperitoneal nodes is an important part of the surgical staging of gynecologic cancers. Although pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy have been widely described by different authors, there is little consensus on the description of the different surgical steps for each procedure. An Intergroup Committee on Onco-Gyn Minimally Invasive Surgery has been established with members of the European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS). The Intergroup Committee has various objectives: writing down a surgical description of the technique, which will be assessed by a group of experts following a formal consensus method and developing a specific Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scale for each procedure., Methods: A hierarchical task analysis was conducted by a working group of eight experts from the three societies in order to identify the surgical steps of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach in paraaortic lymphadenectomy. The selection of the definitive surgical steps was confirmed by a group of 19 experts from the different societies, following a formal consensus method. Two rounds of Delphi panel rating were considered necessary for achieving an agreement. The consensus agreement identified 29 surgical steps in transperitoneal and 17 surgical steps in extraperitoneal approach to complete a paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Once the description of the procedure and the consensus were established, an Objective specific Scale for the Assessment of Technical Skills for Paraaortic lymphadenectomy (PA-OSATS) in the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach was developed., Results: In the first round of rating we found that 28 steps out of 29 in the transperitoneal approach and 13 out of 17 in the extraperitoneal approach did not reach a strong degree of agreement. They were reformulated based on comments made by the experts, and submitted to a second round of rating and this finally achieved an agreement., Conclusion: We defined a list of surgical steps in transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach in paraaortic lymphadenectomy and a specific PA-OSATS scale for these procedures. This tool will be useful for teaching, assessing and standardizing this surgical procedure., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AEB has reported grants for travelling from Olympus; AF has reported advisory boards for Johnson & Johnson, Fondazione Internazionale Menarini and Oncoinvent, research support from AstraZeneca/MSD, and speakers bureau for GlaxoSmithKline and Covidien/Medtronic; RR, LM, FP, HF, MB, DQ, and CT have reported no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing strategies and follow-up of patients with cervical cancers, ovarian cancers, and borderline ovarian tumours. The developmental process of these guidelines is based on a systematic literature review and critical appraisal involving an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of 25 experts from relevant disciplines (ie, gynaecological oncology, oncofertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, imaging, conservative surgery, medical oncology, and histopathology). Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 121 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover oncological aspects of fertility-sparing strategies during the initial management, optimisation of fertility results and infertility management, and the patient's desire for future pregnancy and beyond., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PM reports having had an advisory role or received speaker's honoraria (paid to him or to his institution) from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and ImmunoGen. GS reports grants or contracts from MSD, consulting fees from Tesaro Bio Italy and Johnson and Johnson, and payment or honoraria from Clovis Oncology Italy. NRA-R reports grants or contracts from Grail (paid to the institution). FFi reports honoraria from Theramex and Organon, and support for attending and travelling to meetings from Organon, Merck-Serono, and Theramex (paid to the institution). SB reports honoraria from MSD; support for attending and travelling to meetings from Hologic, MSD, and Pfizer; and honoraria for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Hologic. CR-J reports payment for lectures (paid to the institution) from Organon and Novartis, speakers bureau (paid to the institution) from Gédéon Richter and Roche, and for manuscript writing (paid to the institution) from Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: 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., (© 2023 IGCS and ESGO. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. Published by BMJ.)

Study Question: How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?, Summary Answer: Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma., What Is Known Already: The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment., Study Design Size Duration: A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide., Participants/materials Setting Methods: ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues., Limitations Reasons for Caution: Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group., Wider Implications of the Findings: These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario., Study Funding/competing Interests: All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest., Disclaimer: This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation . The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type ., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)