Search

Objective: To investigate differences in standard clinico-radiological evaluation versus Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for reporting survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation and brachytherapy., Methods: Between November 2017 and March 2020, patients recruited in cervical cancer trials were identified. MRI at diagnosis and at least one follow-up imaging was mandatory. Disease-free survival and progression-free survival were determined using standard evaluation (clinical examination and symptom-directed imaging) and RECIST 1.1. Agreement between criteria was estimated using κ value. Sensitivity analysis was done to test the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RECIST 1.1 in detecting response to treatment., Results: Sixty-nine eligible patients had at least one target lesion. Thirty-three patients (47.8%) had pathological lymph nodes. Of these 33 patients, RECIST 1.1 classified only 18% (6/33) as 'target nodal lesions' and the remaining nodes as 'non-target'. There were 6 (8.7%) and 8 (11.6%) patients with disease events using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation, respectively. The disease-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 was 94.2%, 91.2%, 91.2%, and with standard evaluation was 94.2%, 89.7%, and 88.2%, respectively (p=0.58). Whereas, progression-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation were same (94.2%, 91.2%, and 91.2%, respectively). The κ value was 0.84, showing strong agreement in assessing disease-free survival, although an absolute difference of 3% between endpoint assessment methodologies. RECIST 1.1 had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 34.91% to 96.81%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 94.13% to 100%), and accuracy of 97.1% (95% CI 89.92% to 99.65%)., Conclusions: The study showed 1.5% and 3% difference in disease-free survival at 18 and 24 months and no difference in progression-free survival between RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation in a patient cohort with low event rate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Primary vaginal malignancies are rare, comprising only 2% of all female genital tract malignancies in adults and 4.5% in children. As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPe) developed evidence-based guidelines in order to improve the management of patients with vaginal cancer within a multidisciplinary setting.ESTRO/ESGO/SIOPe nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in the management of vaginal cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, their national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (13 experts across Europe comprising the international development group). To ensure that the statements were evidence based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised.In the case of absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 112 independent international practitionners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives and their comments and input were incorporated and addressed accordingly.These guidelines cover comprehensively the diagnostic pathways as well as the surgical, radiotherapeutical and systemic management and follow-up of adult patients (including those with rare histological subtypes) and pediatric patients (vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma and germ cell tumours) with vaginal tumours., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CC has reported advisory boards for GSK and MSD; SL has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD, Novartis and AstraZeneca;MPS has reported grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; CF has reported advisory board for Roche, Tesaro, GSK, MDS/AZ, Clovis., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary 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 and 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NCon: advisory boards for Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca and Mersana, education fees from Medscape Oncology, and grants for travelling from Roche, Genmab and Amgen. IV: advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Carrick Therapeutics, Debiopharm International, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, MSD Belgium, Octimet Oncology, Oncoinvent, Pharmamar-Doctaforum Servicios, Roche, Sotio, Tesaro, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals and Verastem Oncology (fees for consulting to his university), contracted research (KU Leuven) for Oncoinvent AS and Genmab, corporate sponsored research for Amgen and Roche, and grants for travelling from Amgen, MSD/Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and Tesaro. DC: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Roche, Sotio and Novocure. MRM: personal financial interests for AstraZeneca, Biocard, Clovis Oncology, Geneos, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Oncology Venture, Pfizer, Roche, SeatleGenetics, SeraPrognostics, Sotio, Tesaro-GSK, ZaiLab; leadership role for Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sera Prognostics; institutional financial interests (study grants) for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Tesaro-GSK, Ultimovacs. JL: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Artios Pharma, Regeneron, Amgen and Clovis Oncology, and grants for travelling from Clovis Oncology. CC: advisory boards for MSD, Takeda and GSK, conducting research for TherAguiX and Roche, and grants for travelling from Takeda. AF: advisory boards for GSK and Johnson & Johnson SpA, and grants for travelling from Pharmmar and MSD Italia. CF: advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Ethicon, Roche, MSD, GSK and Tesaro, and grants for travelling from Sequana. AGM: speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Roche and GSK, advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Pfizer/Merck, Pharmamar, Roche and Sotio, and grants for travelling from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar Roche and Tesaro. DL: advisory boards for Roche, Amgen, MSD, GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Genmab, Pharmamar and Merck, and grants for travelling from Pharmamar, GSK, Roche and AstraZeneca. CM: consulting/advisory boards for Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Cerulean, Vertex and Tesaro, funded research from EU, FWF, AstraZeneca and Roche, and honoraria/expenses from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, Pharmamar, AstraZeneca and Tesaro. JS: advisory boards for Roche, Eisei, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK and Tesaro. AT: advisory boards for Genmab; PW: advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Lilly, Roche Pharma GmbH, TEVA, Eisai, Clovis and Tesaro, and grants for travelling from Roche Pharma GmbH, AstraZeneca, MSD, Amgen and Pfizer. NC: consulting and advisory services, speaking or writing engagements, public presentations for Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pharmamar, Tesaro, GSK, Clovis, Advaxis, Pfizer, Takeda, Immunogen, Biocad, Amgen, Novartis and Ellipses, institutional financial interests for Roche, Pharmamar and AstraZeneca, and non-financial interests for ESMO clinical Guidelines (subject editor for gynecological cancer). XMG, SM, TB, SL, PM, RN, DOD, DQ, MRR, AS, AW, FP, and CLC: no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)