Search

Objective: Females with low-risk endometrial cancer typically have low lymph node metastasis risk and promising prognosis without lymphadenectomy. However, the impact of grade 3 endometrial cancer on nodal involvement, recurrence, and prognosis within this specific subgroup remains unclear. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the prognosis, patterns of metastasis, and recurrence in a subgroup of females with grade 3 early-stage low-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer., Methods: We identified patients from the endometrial cancer cohorts of seven institutional hospitals. The study included patients who underwent hysterectomy between January 2013 and December 2021 with preoperative endometrioid histological type, less than half myometrial invasion, no tumor spread outside the corpus on imaging, normal CA-125 level, and histological grade 3. The clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes of the patients were collected. Recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test., Results: Overall, 36 patients were included in this analysis. Of the 33 patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, 1 (1/33, 3.0 %) had lymph node metastasis and 27 (75.0 %) received adjuvant therapy. At a median follow-up of 58 months, three females (8 %) had recurrence and all cases involved lymph nodes. The 5-year recurrence-free survival was 88.7 %. No significant difference was observed in the recurrence-free survival between females who did and did not undergo lymphadenectomy (p = 0.554)., Conclusion: Females diagnosed with low-risk grade 3 endometrial cancer typically have favorable prognosis. However, lymph node metastasis and recurrence risks still exist, with all recorded instances of recurrence involving lymph nodes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to compare survival and complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery and evaluate related risk factors in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer., Methods: Clinicopathologic characteristics; survival outcomes; complications; and prognostic factors associated with progression-free survival and overall survival were compared among patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary staging surgery using laparoscopic, robotic, or open abdominal surgery (2004-2017)., Results: In total, 91 patients were included: 41 and 50 underwent minimally invasive surgery and open surgery, respectively. The minimally invasive surgery and open surgery groups showed similar progression-free survival (5-year progression-free survival rate, 58.7 % vs. 58.5 %; P = .925) and overall survival (5-year overall survival rate, 73.6 % vs. 80.3 %; P = .834). Intraoperative (7.2 % vs. 6.0 %; P = .111) and postoperative surgical complications (14.6 % vs. 26.0 %; P = .165) were similar between the groups. However, blood loss was lower (mean, 305.1 vs. 561.2 ml, P < .001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean, 8.2 vs. 15.4 days, P < .001) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Using multivariate analysis, lymphovascular space invasion was identified as poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.054; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.521-6.132; P = .002) and overall survival (adjusted HR, 3.918; 95 % CI, 1.455-10.551; P = .007), whereas age ≥ 60 years was poor prognostic factor for only overall survival (adjusted HR, 5.0953; 95 % CI, 1.660-15.378; P = .004)., Conclusions: Surgical outcomes did not differ between the minimally invasive and open surgery group in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Lymphovascular space invasion was a significant survival factor in this context., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Endometrial Cancer Consensus Conference on Clinical Research (ECCC) was held in Incheon, South Korea, Nov 2-3, 2023. The aims were to develop consensus statements for future trials in endometrial cancer to achieve harmonisation on design elements, select important questions, and identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and finalisation of 18 statements within four topic groups, addressing adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease; treatment for metastatic and recurrent disease; trial designs for rare endometrial cancer subgroups and special circumstances; and specific methodology and adaptation for trials in low-resource settings. In addition, eight areas of unmet need were identified. This was the first GCIG Consensus Conference to include patient advocates and an expert on inclusion, diversity, equity, and access to take part in all aspects of the process and output. Four early-career investigators were also selected for participation, ensuring that they represented different GCIG member groups and regions. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 16 of the 18 statements, with 97% concordance for the remaining two. Using the described methodology from previous Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conferences, this conference did not require even one minority statement. The high acceptance rate following active involvement in the preparation, discussion, and refinement of the statements by all representatives confirmed the consensus progress within a global academic setting, and the expectation that the ECCC will lead to greater harmonisation, actualisation, inclusion, and resolution of unmet needs in clinical research for individuals living with and beyond endometrial cancer worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors report that the KGOG paid for their 2-night hotel stay and basic meals during the 2 days of the ECCC on Clinical Research meeting. CLC reports a research grant paid to her institution from Varian; payment to her institution for participation on a data safety monitoring board from Merck; and unpaid roles as chair of GCIG Endometrial Committee and member of Guidelines Committees for Endometrial cancer of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology. GE reports personal consulting fees from MSD, personal fees from Eisai, and support for attending a meeting or travel from MSD. LE reports personal consulting fees AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, and support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca and GSK. RAN reports research grants paid to his institution from Elekta, Varian, and Accuray; and payment to his institution for presentations from Elekta and MSD. DL reports research grants both personal and paid to her institution from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Pharmamar, and Seagen; personal grants from Corcept, Oncoinvest, and Sutro; and grants to her institution from Incyte and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; payment for presentations from Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro; support for attending a meeting or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD and GSK; and payments for participation on a data safety monitoring board from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Novartis, Oncoinvest, Pharmamar, Seagen, and Sutro. AO reports research grants paid to his institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, uncompensated participation on data and safety monitoring boards of studies funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline; and unpaid roles as principal investigator on investigator-initiated trials and on steering committees of trials funded by AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. BP reports research grants from Tesaro/GSK, Merck, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sutro, Incyte, Clovis Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Mersana, Celsion/Immunon, Imab, Takeda, Toray, VBL Therapeutics, InxMed, Agenus, Seagen, NRG Oncology, Duality Bio, Xencor, Onconova, Celgene, Sutro Biopharma, Novocure, Immunogen, Eisai, Acrivon, and Alkermes; consulting fees from Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Immunogen, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, SeaGen, Lily, Eisai, Signatera, Celsion, Butro Biopharma, Imvax, Incyte, InxMed, Onconova Therapeutics, R Pharm, Regeneron, and Duality Bio; payment for presentations from Bioascend, PERS, Vanium, Curio, OncLive, Yale University and PeerView; support for attending a meeting or travel from GOG Partners, payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Sutro, AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, Celsion/Immunon, Toray, InxMed, Imvax, Imab, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Mersana, Nuvation, and BioNtech; and unpaid leadership roles in boards, societies and committees: Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee Chair, SGO Board of Directors, SGO COVID-19 Taskforce co-chair, GOG Partners, and New York Obstetrical Society Second VP. BH reports textbook royalties from Elsevier; consulting fees from Tempus; honoraria for lectures from Leica and Projects in Knowledge; and unpaid leadership roles on the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Board of Directors (as member at large) and on the Endometrial Cancer MSI Committee of the College of American Pathologists. IR-C reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, and MSD; payment for presentations from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Mersana, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Seagen, Eisai, and Novartis; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, and MSD; and payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Clovis, Deciphera, Adaptimmue, Sutro, and Immunogen. DG reports support for attending meetings or travel from IGCS Board of Directors; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck, and a leadership role in NRG Oncology. AM reports payment for participation as independent statistician on data safety monitoring boards from ONY Biotech, Regeneron, and Genentech/Roche. NC reports payments or honoraria for presentations from GSK, Seagen, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, Kartos, MSD, Mersana, ImmunoGen, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, TouchIME, and Medscape Oncology; support for attending a meeting or travel from Roche, Genmab, and Amgen; payment for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from GSK, Mersana, Seagen, ImmunoGen, Akesobio, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Mersana, Seattle Genetics, eTheRNA immunotherapies NV, and Kartos; and leadership roles as President of ESGO and Chair of European Network for Gynaecological Oncological Trial groups Early Drug Development Network. MAP reports grants paid to his institution from GSK; payment for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from GSK, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Immunogen, Clovis Oncology, Jazz Pharma, and SeaGen; and payment to his institution for a leadership role on a board or committee from NRG Oncology. MAB reports payment to his institution for participation on a data and safety monitoring board from Immunogen; and employment as physician at The Permanente Medical Group. J-WK, EA, SIK, J-YP, LM, PBO, AB, DM, VG, TB, CG, TM, HW, XM-G, WS, and GS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: To investigate the prognostic significance of L1 cell-adhesion molecule (L1CAM), β-catenin, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) in endometrial cancer (EC) patients, with a focus on p53 wild-type subgroup, for additional risk stratification., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included EC patients classified according to Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer (ProMisE) who underwent primary surgical treatment at the single center between January 2014 and December 2018. Immunohistochemical staining was performed for four mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, p53, L1CAM, β-catenin, and PD-L1. DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE) mutation was detected by hot spot sequencing via droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Survival outcome of each subgroup of L1CAM, β-catenin, and PD-L1 was measured according to their expression., Results: A total of 162 EC patients were included. Endometrioid histologic type and early-stage disease were 140 (86.4%) and 109 (67.3%), respectively. ProMisE classification assigned 48 (29.6%), 16 (9.9%), 72 (44.4%), and 26 (16.0%) patients to MMR-deficient, POLE-mutated, p53 wild-type, and p53 abnormal subgroups, respectively. L1CAM was identified as an independent poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.207; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.432-7.187; P = 0.005), whereas β-catenin and PD-L1 positivity were not associated with recurrence (P = 0.462 and P = 0.152, respectively). In p53 wild-type subgroup, L1CAM positivity was associated with worse PFS (aHR, 4.906; 95% CI, 1.685-14.287; P = 0.004)., Conclusion: L1CAM positivity was associated with poor prognosis in EC and further stratified the risk of recurrence in p53 wild-type subgroup, whereas β-catenin and PD-L1 were not informative for risk stratification., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interest relevant to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endometrial carcinosarcoma is a rare and aggressive high-grade endometrial carcinoma with secondary sarcomatous trans-differentiation (conversion theory). The clinical presentation and diagnostic work-up roughly align with those of the more common endometrioid counterpart, although endometrial carcinosarcoma is more frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. Endometrial carcinosarcoma is not a single entity but encompasses different histological subtypes, depending on the type of carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. The majority of endometrial carcinosarcomas are characterized by p53 abnormalities. The proportion of POLE and microsatellite instablity-high (MSI-H) is directly related to the epithelial component, being approximately 25% and 3% in endometrioid and non-endometrioid components.The management of non-metastatic disease is based on a multimodal approach with optimal surgery followed by (concomitant or sequential) chemotherapy and radiotherapy, even for early stages. Palliative chemotherapy is recommended in the metastatic or recurrent setting, with carboplatin/paclitaxel doublet being the first-line regimen. Although the introduction of immunotherapy plus/minus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor shifted the paradigm of treatment of patients with recurrent endometrial cancer, patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma were excluded from most studies evaluating single-agent immunotherapy or the combination. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the use of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in endometrial cancer (all histotypes) after progression on chemotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy in MSI-H cancers. In the era of precision medicine, emerging knowledge on molecular endometrial carcinosarcoma is opening new promising therapeutic options for more personalized treatment. The present review outlines state-of-the-art knowledge and future directions for patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GB: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG); NC: 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). IR-C: 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. YS: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). PW: 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). NYLN: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). KT: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). TE: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). DL: 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. DMP: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). NRA-R: NIH/NCI Cancer Center support grant P30 CA008748 (F). HD: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH); BJM: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E)., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The mainstay of endometrial cancer treatment is surgical resection of tumors and postoperative adjuvant treatment is recommended if necessary. However, there is no consensus on the management of unresectable metastatic endometrial cancer. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (NAC-IDS) in unresectable, metastatic endometrial cancer., Methods: From the endometrial cancer cohorts of four institutions in Korea, we identified patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IIIC-IVB endometrial cancer who received NAC-IDS between January 2008 and December 2020. Through a medical record review, we collected patients' clinicopathological data. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the factors affecting survival outcomes were analyzed., Results: Overall, 32 patients were included with endometrioid (n = 18), serous (n = 5), carcinosarcoma (n = 6), and other histological types (n = 3). Among them, 28 (87.5%) patients had stage IVB disease. The most common neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimen was paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 25, 78.1%), which was administered for a median of six cycles. While 26 (81.3%) patients showed an objective response, two (6.3%) progressed despite NAC. At the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS), 23 (71.9%) patients achieved complete cytoreduction. During 31.0 months of the median follow-up, there were 23 recurrences and 11 deaths, corresponding to a median PFS of 19.7 months and a 3-year OS rate of 69.7%. In multivariate analyses, non-endometrioid histology and residual tumor after IDS were identified as independent poor prognostic factors for PFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 7.322; P < 0.001 and 5.934; P = 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis for OS could not be conducted because of the small number of events, although non-endometrioid histology was the only factor associated with worse OS in univariate analysis (adjusted HR, 4.523; P = 0.032)., Conclusions: NAC-IDS may be a treatment option for unresectable metastatic endometrial cancer. Tumor histology and the possibility of complete cytoreduction are the primary considerations for NAC-IDS., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib (PEMBRO+LEN) for recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) in a real-world setting., Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with recurrent EC who received PEMBRO+LEN between March 2020 and May 2021 at three tertiary hospitals in Korea. We summarized patient characteristics and evaluated the response rates, survival outcomes, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs)., Results: In total, 48 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 62.5 (range, 42-78) years. The most common histologic subtype was endometrioid adenocarcinoma (43.8%), followed by serous adenocarcinoma (25.0%). Most patients (91.7%) had mismatch repair-proficient tumors. Patients received PEMBRO+LEN for a median of 4.5 cycles, during which the best objective response rate and disease control rate were 23.8% (95% CI, 11.9-38.1) and 76.2% (95% CI, 61.9-88.1), respectively. Overall, 56.2% of patients experienced LEN dose reduction once or more and 16.7% experienced LEN interruption. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (18.8%), hypertension (16.7%), and hypothyroidism (14.6%). Total of 8 patients (16.7%) discontinued LEN during the treatment because of treatment-related AEs. Serum CA-125 level was the only prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-16.36; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: In our real-world study, Korean patients with recurrent EC who received PEMBRO+LEN showed lower treatment response rate and similar treatment discontinuation rate, compared to clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 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.)

Objective: This study aimed to determine the association of serum GGT levels with the risk of developing endometrial cancer. Women's obesity and menopausal status were also taken into account in our analysis., Methods: We used a nationwide cohort to examine the association between serum GGT levels and endometrial cancer development in Korean women. Data were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) healthcare system. Women aged over 19 years who participated in the Korea National Health Screening Examination in 2009 and were not diagnosed with endometrial cancer 1-year post-examination were included in our study (n = 2,736,588)., Results: Obese (BMI, ≥25 kg/m 2 ) women with increased GGT levels were at high risk of endometrial cancer (HR = 1.415, 95% CI: 1.236-1.621). Interestingly, in pre-menopausal women, high GGT level (Q4) was associated with the increased endometrial cancer risk only for obese women (HR = 1.482, 95% CI: 1.205-1.821). In post-menopausal women, only a high GGT level (Q4) was also associated with the increased cancer risk for obese women (HR = 1.313, 95% CI: 1.096-1.573). We observed a significant association between high GGT levels and increased risk of endometrial cancer in pre-menopausal women with abdominal obesity (WC, ≥85 cm) (HR = 1.647, 95% CI: 1.218-2.227)., Conclusions: Increased GGT level is an independent risk factor of endometrial cancer, especially for post-menopausal women and obese pre-menopausal women. These results may suggest that serum GGT levels might be useful in the risk stratification of endometrial cancer. Adopting a healthy lifestyle for lowering serum GGT level is warranted, especially for women with a higher risk of developing endometrial cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have declared that no competing interest exists., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Somatic amplifications of the LYL1 gene are relatively common occurrences in patients who develop uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma (UCEC) as opposed to other cancers. This study was undertaken to determine whether such genetic alterations affect survival outcomes of UCEC., Methods: In 370 patients with UCEC, we analysed clinicopathologic characteristics and corresponding genomic data from The Cancer Genome Atlas database. Patients were stratified according to LYL1 gene status, grouped as amplification or non-amplification. Heightened levels of cancer-related genes expressed in concert with LYL1 amplification were similarly investigated through differentially expressed gene and gene set enrichment analyses. Factors associated with survival outcomes were also identified., Results: Somatic LYL1 gene amplification was observed in 22 patients (5.9%) with UCEC. Patients displaying amplification (vs. non-amplification) were significantly older at the time of diagnosis and more often were marked by non-endometrioid, high-grade, or advanced disease. In survival analysis, the amplification subset showed poorer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates (3-year PFS: 34.4% vs. 79.9%, P = 0.031; 5-year OS: 25.1% vs. 84.9%, P = 0.014). However, multivariate analyses adjusted for tumor histologic type, grade, and stage did not confirm LYL1 gene amplification as an independent prognostic factor for either PFS or OS. Nevertheless, MAPK, WNT, and cell cycle pathways were significantly enriched by LYL1 gene amplification (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P = 0.004, respectively)., Conclusions: Despite not being identified as an independent prognostic factor in UCEC, LYL1 gene amplification is associated with other poor prognostic factors and correlated with upregulation of cancer-related pathways.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether the preoperative diameter of cardiophrenic lymph nodes (CPLNs) along the short and long axes, determined via computed tomography (CT), predicts CPLN metastasis in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer., Methods: A total of 31 patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer who had CPLN dissection underwent preoperative CT that was reviewed twice by a radiologist blinded to the final pathology. An array of CT features and clinical factors [age, cancer antigen 125 (CA 125)] were compared between metastasis-positive and metastasis-negative CPLNs using the t test and Fisher's exact test. The optimal CPLN dimensions that best predicted metastasis were calculated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and were applied to find the correlation with other CT findings. Results were validated in an independent test set of nine patients by using the best cutoff value to predict metastasis., Results: Pathological evaluation revealed metastasis-positive CPLNs in 19 patients and metastasis-negative CPLNs in 12 patients. Metastasis-positive CPLNs had significantly reduced short axes than those of negative CPLNs (5.6 ± 1.7 and 7.8 ± 2.2, respectively; p < 0.001). ROC curve analysis showed that a cutoff value of 7 mm for the short axis demonstrated the largest area under the curve (0.789; p < 0.0007), with 63.16 % sensitivity and 83.33 % specificity. The presence of peritoneal metastasis and abdominopelvic adenopathy strongly related with CPLN adenopathy. Accuracies were 66.7 % (six of nine patients) based on the cutoff value in the independent test set., Conclusions: The probability of detecting CPLN metastasis in patients with advanced ovarian cancer was approximately 85 % when the short axis of the CPLN was >7 mm in preoperative CT scans. Patients with CPLNs of this size may be candidates for CPLN dissection in order to confirm the pathological diagnosis.

Breast cancer is the most common type of female cancer. Tamoxifen, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, is widely used to decrease breast cancer recurrence and mortality among patients. However, it also increases the risk of endometrial cancer. This study aimed to assess knowledge and decisional conflict regarding tamoxifen use. Between June and October 2014, breast cancer patients using tamoxifen were consecutively screened and requested to complete a survey including the EQ-5D, Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SWD), Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and a self-developed, 15-item questionnaire measuring tamoxifen-related knowledge. The study sample comprised 299 patients. The mean total knowledge score was 63.4 of a possible 100.0 (range, 13.3-93.3). While 73.9% of the participants knew that tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence, only 57.9% knew that the drug increases endometrial cancer risk. A higher education level (≥ college) was associated with a higher, total knowledge score (β = 4.291; P = 0.017). A higher knowledge score was associated with a decreased DCS score (β = -0.366; P < 0.001). A higher SWD score was also associated with decreased decisional conflict (β = -0.178; P < 0.001). In conclusion, the breast cancer patients with higher levels of tamoxifen-related knowledge showed lower levels of decisional conflict regarding tamoxifen use. Clinicians should provide the exact information about tamoxifen treatment to patients, based on knowledge assessment results, so as to aid patients' decision-making with minimal conflict.