Search

Objective Lymph node metastases (pN+) in presumed early-stage cervical cancer negatively impact prognosis. Using federated learning, we aimed to develop a tool to identify a group of women at low risk of pN+, to guide the shared decision-making process concerning the extent of lymph node dissection. Methods Women with cervical cancer between 2005 and 2020 were identified retrospectively from population-based registries: the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database, Swedish Quality Registry for Gynaecologic Cancer and Netherlands Cancer Registry. Inclusion criteria were: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma; The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 IA2, IB1 and IIA1; treatment with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node assessment. We applied privacy-preserving federated logistic regression to identify risk factors of pN+. Significant factors were used to stratify the risk of pN+. Results We included 3606 women (pN+ 11%). The most important risk factors of pN+ were lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (odds ratio [OR] 5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.59–5.79), tumour size 21–40 mm (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.89–2.43) and depth of invasion>10 mm (OR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.59–2.08). A group of 1469 women (41%)—with tumours without LVSI, tumour size ≤20 mm, and depth of invasion ≤10 mm—had a very low risk of pN+ (2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7–3.3%). Conclusion Early-stage cervical cancer without LVSI, a tumour size ≤20 mm and depth of invasion ≤10 mm, confers a low risk of pN+. Based on an international privacy-preserving analysis, we developed a useful tool to guide the shared decision-making process regarding lymph node dissection., Objective: Lymph node metastases (pN+) in presumed early-stage cervical cancer negatively impact prognosis. Using federated learning, we aimed to develop a tool to identify a group of women at low risk of pN+, to guide the shared decision-making process concerning the extent of lymph node dissection. Methods: Women with cervical cancer between 2005 and 2020 were identified retrospectively from population-based registries: the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database, Swedish Quality Registry for Gynaecologic Cancer and Netherlands Cancer Registry. Inclusion criteria were: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma; The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 IA2, IB1 and IIA1; treatment with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node assessment. We applied privacy-preserving federated logistic regression to identify risk factors of pN+. Significant factors were used to stratify the risk of pN+. Results: We included 3606 women (pN+ 11%). The most important risk factors of pN+ were lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (odds ratio [OR] 5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.59–5.79), tumour size 21–40 mm (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.89–2.43) and depth of invasion>10 mm (OR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.59–2.08). A group of 1469 women (41%)—with tumours without LVSI, tumour size ≤20 mm, and depth of invasion ≤10 mm—had a very low risk of pN+ (2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7–3.3%). Conclusion: Early-stage cervical cancer without LVSI, a tumour size ≤20 mm and depth of invasion ≤10 mm, confers a low risk of pN+. Based on an international privacy-preserving analysis, we developed a useful tool to guide the shared decision-making process regarding lymph node dissection.

Contains fulltext : 283077.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVE: Treatment strategies for bulky lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer scheduled for definitive chemoradiation include nodal boosting with radiotherapy, surgical debulking, or both. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival and toxicity in patients receiving these treatments and to compare them with a group that received neither form of treatment. METHODS: Women diagnosed between January 2009 and January 2017 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2, IIA2-IVA cervical cancer with lymph nodes ≥1.5 cm without upper limit on pretreatment imaging and treated with definitive chemoradiation were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized by intention-to-treat strategy: boosting, debulking, or neither treatment, with subgroup analysis for patients receiving both treatments, that is, debulking with boosting. Overall and relapse-free survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses and toxicity by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 190 patients, 101 (53%) received only nodal boosting, 31 (16%) debulking alone, 29 (15%) debulking combined with boosting, and 29 (15%) received neither treatment. The 5 year overall and relapse-free survival for the treatment groups were 58%, 45% and 45% (p=0.19), and 47%, 44% and 46% (p=0.87), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses demonstrated no differences in overall and relapse-free survival. Combination of debulking with boosting was associated with decreased overall and relapse-free survival compared with debulking alone (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.00; and HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.93). Nodal boosting was independently associated with a decreased toxicity risk compared with debulking strategy (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no survival benefit from either nodal boosting or debulking strategy in patients with suspicious bulky nodes. Nodal

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for testing causal hypotheses in the clinical domain; however, the investigation of prognostic variables of patient outcome in a hypothesized cause–effect route is not feasible using standard statistical methods. Here we propose a new automated causal inference method (AutoCI) built on the invariant causal prediction (ICP) framework for the causal reinterpretation of clinical trial data. Compared with existing methods, we show that the proposed AutoCI allows one to clearly determine the causal variables of two real-world RCTs of patients with endometrial cancer with mature outcome and extensive clinicopathological and molecular data. This is achieved via suppressing the causal probability of non-causal variables by a wide margin. In ablation studies, we further demonstrate that the assignment of causal probabilities by AutoCI remains consistent in the presence of confounders. In conclusion, these results confirm the robustness and feasibility of AutoCI for future applications in real-world clinical analysis.

Objective Treatment strategies for bulky lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer scheduled for definitive chemoradiation include nodal boosting with radiotherapy, surgical debulking, or both. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival and toxicity in patients receiving these treatments and to compare them with a group that received neither form of treatment. Methods Women diagnosed between January 2009 and January 2017 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2, IIA2-IVA cervical cancer with lymph nodes ≥1.5 cm without upper limit on pretreatment imaging and treated with definitive chemoradiation were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized by intention-to-treat strategy: boosting, debulking, or neither treatment, with subgroup analysis for patients receiving both treatments, that is, debulking with boosting. Overall and relapse-free survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses and toxicity by logistic regression analysis. Results Of 190 patients, 101 (53%) received only nodal boosting, 31 (16%) debulking alone, 29 (15%) debulking combined with boosting, and 29 (15%) received neither treatment. The 5 year overall and relapse-free survival for the treatment groups were 58%, 45% and 45% (p=0.19), and 47%, 44% and 46% (p=0.87), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses demonstrated no differences in overall and relapse-free survival. Combination of debulking with boosting was associated with decreased overall and relapse-free survival compared with debulking alone (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.00; and HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.93). Nodal boosting was independently associated with a decreased toxicity risk compared with debulking strategy (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83). Conclusions This study showed no survival benefit from either nodal boosting or debulking strategy in patients with suspicious bulky nodes. Nodal b

Purpose: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. Methods and Materials: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 (“not at all” and “a little”) versus 3 to 4 (“quite a bit” and “very much”) were compared between the techniques. Results: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade ≥3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade ≥2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade ≥2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P < .01). Among 574 (87%) patients evaluable for QoL, 494 received 3DCRT and 80 IMRT. During treatment, 37.5% (vs 28.6%) reported diarrhea after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (P = .125); 22.1% (versus 10.0%) bowel urgency (P = 0039), and 18.2% and 8.6% abdominal cramps (P = .058). Other QoL scores showed no differences. Conclusions: IMRT resulted in fewer grade ≥3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade ≥2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cr

Upon discovery of lymph node metastasis during radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, the gynaecologist may pursue one of two treatment strategies: abandonment of surgery followed by primary (chemo)radiotherapy (PRT) or completion of radical hysterectomy, followed by adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (RHRT). Current guidelines recommend PRT over RHRT, as combined treatment is presumably associated with increased morbidity. However, this review of literature suggests there are no significant differences in survival and recurrence and total proportions of adverse events between treatment strategies. Additionally, both strategies are associated with varying types of adverse events, and affect quality of life and sexual functioning differently, both in the short and long term. Although total proportions of adverse events were comparable between treatment strategies, lower extremity lymphoedema was reported more often after RHRT and symptom experience (e.g. distress from bladder or bowel problems) and sexual dysfunction more often after PRT. As reporting of adverse events, quality of life and sexual functioning were not standardised across the articles included, and covariate adjustment was not conducted in most of the analyses, comparability of studies is hampered. Accumulating retrospective evidence suggests no major differences on oncological outcome and morbidity after PRT and RHRT for intraoperatively discovered lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer. However, conclusions should be considered cautiously, as all studies were of retrospective design with small sample sizes. Still, treatment strategies seem to affect adverse events, quality of life and sexual functioning in different ways, allowing room for shared decision-making and personalised treatment.

The tumor microenvironment is currently in the spotlight of cancer immunology research as a key factor impacting tumor development and progression. While antigen-specific immune responses play a crucial role in tumor rejection, the tumor hampers these immune responses by creating an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Recently, major progress has been achieved in the field of cancer immunotherapy, and several groundbreaking clinical trials demonstrated the potency of such therapeutic interventions in patients. Yet, the responses greatly vary among individuals. This calls for the rational design of more efficacious cancer immunotherapeutic interventions that take into consideration the “immune signature” of the tumor. Multimodality treatment regimens that aim to enhance intratumoral homing and activation of antigen-specific immune effector cells, while simultaneously targeting tumor immunosuppression, are pivotal for potent antitumor immunity.

Background: The survival results of the PORTEC-3 trial showed a significant improvement in both overall and failure-free survival with chemoradiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone. The present analysis was performed to compare long-term adverse events (AE) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patients and methods: 660 women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemoradiotherapy (2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin followed by 4 cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel) or radiotherapy alone. Toxicity was graded using CTCAE v3.0. HRQOL was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and CX24/OV28-subscales and compared to normative-data. An as-treated analysis was performed. Results: Median follow up was 74.6 months; 574 (87%) patients were evaluable for HRQOL. At 5 years, grade ≥2 AE were scored for 78 (38%) patients who had received chemoradiotherapy versus 46 (24%) who had received radiotherapy (p=0.008). Grade 3 AE did not differ significantly between the groups (8% vs 5%, p=0.18) at 5 years, and only one new late grade 4 toxicity had been reported. At 3 and 5 years, sensory neuropathy toxicity grade ≥2 persisted after chemoradiotherapy in 6% (vs 0% after radiotherapy, p<0.001) and more patients reported significant tingling or numbness at HRQOL (27% vs 8%, p<0.001 at 3 years; 24% vs 9%, p=0.002 at 5 years). Until 3 years, more patients who had chemoradiotherapy reported limb weakness (21% vs 5%, p<0.001) and lower physical (79 vs 87, p<0.001) and role functioning (78 vs 88, p<0.001) scores. Both treatment groups reported similar long-term global health/QOL scores, which were better than those of the normative-population. Conclusion: This study shows a long-lasting, clinically relevant, negative impact of chemoradiotherapy on toxicity and HRQOL, most importantly persistent peripheral sensory neuropathy. Physical and role functioning impairments were seen until 3 years. These long-term data are essential for patient information and

Background: Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated. Methods: Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data. Results: In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87–0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12–0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05–1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8–91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy. Conclusions: There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy.