Search

Objective: Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and atypical hyperplasia (AH) are recognized precursors for endometrial cancer (EC). Most current guidelines do not recommend the routine surgical evaluation of lymph nodes (LN), although recent studies indicate increased use of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN/AH. We aimed to evaluate the rates of positive LN and its effect on the incidence of upstaging of EIN/AH patients, complications, and adjuvant treatment administration., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE(R) using the OvidSP interface and PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Library. Included were studies investigating lymph node evaluation in patients diagnosed with EIN/AH, presenting results of LN assessment and/or comparisons of hysterectomy results with and without lymph node assessment. This analysis was registered at PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023443598)., Results: A total of 447 studies were initially identified through database searching. The current analysis includes 7 studies comprising 1791 atypical endometrial hyperplasia patients who underwent hysterectomy with lymph node assessment. The incidence of positive lymph nodes among those who had undergone any LN evaluation was found to be 1.1% (95% CI 0.3%-2%). The rate of positive LNs was 1.4% (95% CI 0.2%-1.9%) among those who had undergone specifically SLN. 319 (44.3%, 95% CI 34%-54.7%) patients of the patients initially diagnosed with EIN/AH (n = 699), were finally upgraded to EC diagnosis. Fifteen percent of the final EC diagnosed patients were treated with adjuvant treatment. No significant difference regarding complication rates was noticed., Conclusions: Our review indicates that the rate of metastatic LNs is <2% in patients undergoing surgical nodal evaluation for EIN/AH. However, the rate of complication for SLN mapping is low and may have an impact on postoperative therapy decisions in those diagnosed with malignancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest C·N, O.L and Y·S declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clear cell endometrial carcinoma represents an uncommon and poorly understood entity. Data from molecular/genomic profiling highlighted the importance of various signatures in assessing the prognosis of endometrial cancer according to four classes of risk (POLE mutated, MMRd, NSMP, and p53 abnormal). Unfortunately, data specific to clear cell histological subtype endometrial cancer are lacking. More recently, data has emerged to suggest that most of the patients (more than 80%) with clear cell endometrial carcinoma are characterized by p53 abnormality or NSMP type. This classification has important therapeutic implications. Although it is an uncommon entity, clear cell endometrial cancer patients with POLE mutation seem characterized by a good prognosis. Chemotherapy is effective in patients with NSMP (especially in stage III and IV) and patients with p53 abnormal disease (all stages). While, preliminary data suggested that patients with MMRd are less likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The latter group appears to benefit much more from immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent data from clinical trials on pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and nivolumab plus cabozantinib supported that immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) would be the most appropriate treatment for recurrent non-endometrioid endometrial cancer (including clear cell carcinoma) after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials testing the anti-tumor activity of innovative products will clarify the better strategies for advanced/recurrent clear cell endometrial carcinoma. Further prospective evidence is urgently needed to better characterize clear cell endometrial carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Giorgio Bogani: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG). Nicole Concin: AstraZeneca (C/A, SH), Seattle Genetics (C/A, SH), MSD (SAB), Mersana (C/A, SH), eTheRNA immunotherapies NV (C/A, SH), Roche (travel expenses), Genmab (travel expenses), Amgen (travel expenses). Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro and PharmaMar; Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD, Mersana, Deciphera, OncXea, Esai, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer; Research funding from MSD;Travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche. Yakir Segev: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). Pauline Wimberger: Amgen (SH, RF, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, RF, H, SAB), Clovis (SH, RF, SAB), Eisai (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Lilly (SH, SAB), MSD (SH, RF, SAB), Novartis (SH, RF, SAB), Pfizer (SH, RF, SAB), Roche (SH, RF, H, SAB), TEVA (SH, SAB). Natalie YL Ngoi: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). Kazuhiro Takehara: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). Takayuki Enomoto: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). Domenica Lorusso: AstraZeneca (H, CA), Clovis (H, CA, RF), GSK/Tesaro (H, CA), Roche (CA), Genmab (CA), PharmaMar (CA, RF), MSD (CA, RF), Esai (CA), Merck Serono (CA), Novartis (CA) and PharmaMar (H); Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro. Diane Provencher: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). Nadeem Abu-Rustum: NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 (F). Hannelore Denys: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH). Bradley J Monk: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E). The other authors indicated no financial relationship. Legend: consulting/advisory relationship (CA); speaker honoraria (SH); honoraria (H); research funding (RF); ownership interest (OI); intellectual propriety/patent holder (IP); scientific advisory board (SAB)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Serous endometrial cancer represents a relative rare entity accounting for about 10% of all diagnosed endometrial cancer, but it is responsible for 40% of endometrial cancer-related deaths. Patients with serous endometrial cancer are often diagnosed at earlier disease stage, but remain at higher risk of recurrence and poorer prognosis when compared stage-for-stage with endometrioid subtype endometrial cancer. Serous endometrial cancers are characterized by marked nuclear atypia and abnormal p53 staining in immunohistochemistry. The mainstay of treatment for newly diagnosed serous endometrial cancer includes a multi-modal therapy with surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, survival outcomes still remain poor. Recently, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network classified all endometrial cancer types into four categories, of which, serous endometrial cancer mostly is found within the "copy number high" group. This group is characterized by the increased cell cycle deregulation (e.g., CCNE1, MYC, PPP2R1A, PIKCA, ERBB2 and CDKN2A) and TP53 mutations (90%). To date, the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib is an effective treatment modality in second-line therapy, with a response rate of 50% in advanced/recurrent serous endometrial cancer. Owing to the unfavorable outcomes of serous endometrial cancer, clinical trials are a priority. At present, ongoing studies are testing novel combinations of various targeted and immunotherapeutic agents in newly diagnosed and advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer - an important strategy for serous endometrial cancer, whereby tumors are usually p53+ and pMMR, making response to PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy unlikely. Here, the rare tumor working group (including members from the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ESGO), Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG), and Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG)), performed a narrative review reporting on the current landscape of serous endometrial cancer and focusing on standard and emerging therapeutic options for patients affected by this difficult disease., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To study the possible association between uterine cancer and the BRCA1/2 associated cancer syndrome and discuss the implications of such an association on the clinical managment of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42020193496). Considered for inclusion were studies providing the diagnosis rate of uterine cancer in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations by comparing observed and expected rate according to a known disease incidence. The results were measured by standardized incidence ratio (SIR). The primary outcome was defined as any uterine cancer diagnosis and subgroup analyses were conducted for uterine serous papillary cancer (USPC) specifically and for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations separately., Results: 4591 records were identified through database search; eight studies were finally included, comprising 13,098 patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 mutated patients were found to have a significantly higher risk for uterine cancer compared to the general population (SIR = 2.22, 95% CI 1.76-2.8, p < 0.001). A higher incidence of USPC was also found in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (SIR = 17.97, 95% CI 9.89-32.66, p < 0.001), as well as in a separate analysis for BRCA1 (SIR = 2.81, 95% CI 2.09-3.79, p < 0.001) and BRCA2 (SIR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.09-2.80, p < 0.001) mutations., Conclusion: Patients who carry a BRCA1/2 mutation are at a significantly higher risk of developing uterine cancer, specifically USPC, supporting that USPC may be a component of the BRCA1/2 syndrome. The decision to perform concurrent hysterectomy at the time of the risk reduction bilateral salpingo -oophorectomy surgery should be considered individually., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflict of interest, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Epithelial ovarian cancers can be divided into the more common, aggressive type II cancers and the less common, slow-growing type I cancers. Under this model, serous ovarian carcinomas can be subdivided into high-grade (type II) and low-grade (type I) tumours. The two-tier system for grading serous ovarian carcinomas is superior to more detailed grading systems in terms of predicting survival. Low-grade serous carcinomas typically present in young women and have a relatively good prognosis, despite being resistant to chemotherapy. Low-grade serous cancers have a high prevalence of KRAS and BRAF mutations, but a low prevalence of TP53 mutations (which are characteristic of high-grade serous cancers). Among women with low-grade serous ovarian cancer, the presence of a KRAS/BRAF mutation is a favorable prognostic factor. Studies of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) inhibitor in low-grade serous ovarian cancer suggest that identifying MAPK mutations might eventually be useful in guiding treatment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Women with advanced ovarian cancer are treated with chemotherapy either before (neoadjuvant) or after surgery (primary debulking). The goal is to leave no residual disease post-surgery; for women treated with primary debulking surgery this has been associated with an improvement in survival. It has not been shown that the survival advantage conferred by having no residual disease post-surgery is present for women who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: We reviewed the records of 326 women with stage IIIc or IV serous ovarian cancer. We determined if they received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary debulking surgery and we measured the extent of residual disease post-surgery. We estimated seven-year survival rates for women after various treatments., Results: Women who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to have no residual disease than women who had primary debulking surgery (50.1% versus 41.5%; p=0.03) but they experienced inferior seven-year survival (8.6% versus 41%; p<0.0001). Among women who had primary debulking surgery, those with no residual disease had much better seven-year survival than women who had any residual disease (73.6% versus 21.0%; p<0.0001). Women who had no residual disease after debulking surgery and who received intraperitoneal chemotherapy had a seven-year survival of 90%., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be reserved for ovarian cancer patients who are not candidates for primary debulking surgery. Among women with no residual disease after primary debulking surgery, intraperitoneal chemotherapy extends survival., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The use of statins has been associated with reduced risk of malignancies in a variety of organ sites. This study was aimed at studying the effects of statins on gynecological cancers., Methods: The Cancer in The Ovary and Uterus Study (CITOUS) is a case-control study of newly diagnosed cases of gynecological malignancies and age/sex/clinic/ethnic-group matched population controls. Use of statins prior to and following diagnosis was assessed in a subset of 424 cases of ovarian and endometrial cancers and 341 controls, enrolled in Clalit Health Services (CHS), using pharmacy records., Results: The use of statins for more than one year prior to diagnosis was associated with a significantly reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.94) and of endometrial cancer (OR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.87). The association with endometrial cancer, but not with ovarian cancer (OR=0.54, 0.26-1.13), remained statistically significant after adjustment for fruit and vegetable consumption, sports activity, family history of endometrial and colorectal cancer, ethnicity, BMI, duration of breast feeding, age at 1st pregnancy and use of menopausal hormones (RR=0.48, 0.26-0.89). Women who used statins only after diagnosis of cancer had a significantly better survival of both ovarian cancer (Log rank test, p=0.021, age adjusted HR=0.47, 0.26-0.85) and endometrial cancer (p=0.06, age adjusted HR=0.45, 0.23-0.87)., Conclusion: The use of statins for more than one year before diagnosis was associated with a reduction in the risk of endometrial cancer and possibly ovarian cancer. A significantly improved survival of cases of both malignancies was noticed when statins were taken only after diagnosis., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the risk of endometrial cancer in women who carry a mutation in the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene., Methods: We followed 4456 women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation for incident cases of endometrial cancer. The incidence of endometrial cancer was estimated per 100,000 women per year. The hazard ratios for endometrial cancer were estimated by calculating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) according to age group and country of residence. We estimated the impact of tamoxifen and hormone replacement therapy on the incidence of endometrial cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers., Results: After a mean follow-up of 5.7 years, we identified 17 endometrial cancers (13 cases in BRCA1 and 4 cases in BRCA2). The SIR for BRCA1 carriers was 1.91 (95% CI: 1.06-3.19, p=0.03) and for BRCA2 carriers was 1.75 (95% CI: 0.55-4.23, p=0.2). The SIR was 4.14 (95% CI: 1.92 to 7.87) for women who received tamoxifen and was 1.67 (95% CI: 0.81 to 3.07) for women who did not receive tamoxifen. The ten-year cumulative risk of endometrial cancer in women who were treated with tamoxifen was 2.0%., Conclusions: The risk of endometrial cancer is higher in BRCA1 mutation carriers than in the general population. The excessive risk is largely attributable to a history of tamoxifen use, but the actual risk of endometrial cancer associated with tamoxifen is small. It is important to discuss hysterectomy at the time of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy if tamoxifen is to be considered., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)