Search

Background: We previously demonstrated the applicability of the concept of "platinum sensitivity" in recurrent endometrial cancer. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have been widely incorporated into endometrial cancer treatment, the debate continues regarding treatment options in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer who have previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. In this study, we assessed the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment using pooled data from the SGSG-012/GOTIC-004/Intergroup study., Methods: Among the 279 participants in the SGSG-012/GOTIC-004/Intergroup study wherein platinum-based chemotherapy was re-administered for managing recurrent endometrial cancer between January 2005 and December 2009, 130 (47%) responded to chemotherapy. We compared the relationship between platinum-free interval and duration of secondary platinum-based treatment using pooled data., Results: In 40 patients (31%), the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded the platinum-free interval. The duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded 12 months in 51 patients (39%) [platinum-free interval: < 12 months, 14/48 (29%); 12-23 months, 18/43 (42%); 24-35 months, 8/19 (42%); ≥ 36 months, 11/20 (55%)]. In particular, in eight patients (6%), the duration of response to secondary platinum-based treatment exceeded 36 months [platinum-free interval: < 12 months, 3/48 (6%); 12-23 months, 0/19 (0%); 24-35 months, 2/19 (11%); ≥ 36 months, 3/20 (15%)]., Conclusions: Re-administration of platinum-based chemotherapy for recurrent endometrial cancer may result in a long-term response exceeding the platinum-free interval in some patients. Even in the current situation, where immune checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced, re-administration of platinum-based chemotherapy is worth considering., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population., Methods: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group)., Interpretation: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB, FG, ER, and SU report grants from Roche to their institution to support the conduct of the study. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Pfizer, Roche, and Novocure; and grants or research support from GSK and AstraZeneca. KH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Taiho, and Takeda; and grants or research support from MSD/Merck, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. EH reports personal fees from GSK and Clovis. FM reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD/Merck, GSK, Clovis, Gilead, Myriad Genetics, Seagen, and Stemline Menarini; grants or research support from Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Immutep, Amgen, and Palleos Healthcare. CM reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, ImmunoGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novocure, BioNTtech, Eisai, and GSK. LF-M reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai, and Pharma&. YCL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, and grants or research support from BeiGene. EP reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. BP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, and Pharma&. CZ reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, QuintilesIMS, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD/Merck, GSK, and Gilead; and grants or research support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, Clovis, Gilead, Seagen, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD/Merck. KT reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, MSD/Merck, Nippon Kayaku, Eisai, and Sanofi; and grants or research support from Chugai Pharma. AF reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD/Merck. MP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD/Merck. MPBG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Pharma&, and Kyowa Kirin; and a leadership role for Geico. 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.)

Objective: We investigated whether pretreatment systemic inflammatory markers are associated with survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer (EC)., Methods: Data from the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group 2043 were analyzed. Patients who did not receive chemotherapy or were lost to follow-up were excluded. Associations of pretreatment systemic inflammatory markers, including the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet (HALP) score, with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. The optimal NLR, PLR, and HALP score cutoff values for PFS and OS were determined. Survival estimates were calculated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test., Results: We included 712 patients (median age: 55 [range, 28-74] years; body mass index [BMI]: 21.1 [15.2-38.6] kg/m 2 ). For PFS, optimal NLR, PLR, and HALP score cutoff values were 1.48, 0.017, and 35.52, respectively, and for OS, the values were 1.88, 0.026, and 19.87, respectively. At optimal PFS-related cutoff values, NLR was associated with BMI; PLR with age, BMI, and clinical stage; and HALP score with BMI, clinical stage, and lymph node metastasis. At optimal OS-related cutoff values, NLR was associated with BMI, PLR, and BMI; the HALP score was associated with age and BMI. The HALP score was a prognostic factor for PFS (p = 0.025), while PLR and HALP scores were prognostic factors for OS (both p = 0.028)., Conclusions: Pretreatment systemic inflammatory markers are associated with survival outcomes in patients with EC, with the HALP score being a prognostic factor for PFS and OS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Low-grade and high-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas (LGESS and HGESS) and undifferentiated uterine sarcomas (UUS) are rare tumors whose pathological classification and staging system have changed recently. These tumors are reported to contain fusion genes. We aimed to clarify the genetic background, clinical features, prognostic factors, and optimal therapy of these tumors using a new classification and staging system., Methods: We analyzed the clinical features and prognostic information of 72 patients with LGESS, 25 with HGESS, and 16 with UUS using central pathological review. Estrogen and progesterone receptors (PgRs) were examined by immunohistochemistry. JAZF1-SUZ12 and YWHAE-NUTM2A/B gene fusions were tested using real-time polymerase chain reaction., Results: The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of LGESS, HGESS, and UUS were 94%, 53%, and 25%, respectively. In LGESS, stage IV, incomplete surgery, and absence of PgR were associated with poor OS. The presence of JAZF1-SUZ12 fusion gene was not associated with OS. In HGESS, the relationship between stage and prognosis was unclear. None of the 3 patients with YWHAE-NUTM2A/B fusion gene died during follow-up. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a favorable OS. Incomplete resection of UUS was associated with poor OS; however, residual tumors frequently occurred. Although most patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, their prognosis was extremely poor even in stage I disease., Conclusions: Prognosis of LGESS is generally good; however, stage IV, incomplete surgery, and PgR-negative tumors are associated with poor prognosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be useful for HGESS. Prognosis of UUS is extremely poor, even with adjuvant chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest K.T. has received speakers' bureaus from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Eisai Co., Ltd. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by debulking surgery, for clinically diagnosed FIGO stage IVb endometrial cancer (protocol number: JGOG2046)., Methods: The experimental treatment consisted of 3 cycles of paclitaxel (180 mg/m2) plus carboplatin (AUC5) followed by debulking surgery, including total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were considered as eligible if they were pathologically diagnosed as primary endometrial cancer, and had both endometrial tumor and distant metastasis confirmed by imaging examinations. The primary endpoint was the incidence of patients who completed debulking surgery after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Results: While 51 patients were enrolled from 23 hospitals, the final study cohort consisted of 49 patients with a mean age of 59.0 years. Although the response ratio of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 65.3% (95% CI 50.4-78.3%), 67.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 52.5-80.1%) underwent debulking surgery after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 59.2% (95% CI 45.2-71.8%) completed the protocol treatment including 3 courses of adjuvant chemotherapy. The median disease-free survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI 6.5-11.9), while the median overall survival time was 23.2 months (95% CI 11.9-27.8). A patient with sigmoid colon cancer and another with cervical cancer were included in this study., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery was a feasible and acceptable treatment for metastatic endometrial cancer. (225 words)., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

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.)

Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 is a phase 3 open-label, randomized trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced endometrial cancer with progression after platinum-based therapy. Primary endpoints of superiority for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab were met for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in all-comers (ie, regardless of mismatch repair [MMR] status) and patients with MMR proficiency (pMMR). We present results for the Japanese subset. Patients were randomized to oral lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W; up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab) or TPC (intravenous doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 Q3W or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 QW [3 weeks on/1 week off]). Primary endpoints were PFS by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1 and OS. One hundred four patients were randomized in Japan (data cutoff, October 26, 2020; median follow-up, 11.8 [range, 1.1-26.9] months). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus TPC were 1.04 (95% CI, 0.63-1.73) in patients with pMMR and 0.81 (0.50-1.31) in all-comers. Hazard ratios for OS were 0.74 (0.41-1.34) with pMMR and 0.59 (0.33-1.04) for all-comers. Adverse events were manageable and led to discontinuation of one/both study drugs in 36.5% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 7.8% in the TPC group. Similar to the global Study 309/KEYNOTE-775 results, this analysis suggested favorable efficacy and manageable safety with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab after platinum-based chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced endometrial cancer and supports this combination as a new standard of care in this population., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

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: To determine the safety and efficacy of dose-dense (dd) paclitaxel (PTX) and carboplatin (CBDCA) in treating advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer., Methods: Women aged 20-75 years with histologically confirmed endometrial cancer, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III disease with some residual tumor, FIGO stage IV disease, recurrence after front-line curative treatment, or recurrence after second-line chemotherapy or radiotherapy were enrolled in this study. PTX (80 mg/m²) was administered intravenously (IV) to every participant on days 1, 8, and 15, and CBDCA (area under the curve of 5) was administered IV on day 1 once every 3 weeks until the disease progressed, unacceptable adverse events occurred, or consent was withdrawn. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RR), while the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects., Results: Forty-eight participants were enrolled, and 46 were eligible to receive treatment. The patients' median age was 61 years (range, 43-76 years). Twenty-two participants had experienced recurrence, and the remaining patients had primary advanced endometrial cancer. There were 10 cases of serous carcinoma, 3 cases of endometrioid carcinoma G3, 2 cases of carcinosarcoma, and 2 cases of clear-cell carcinoma according to histology. Twenty-nine participants (63.0%) received ≥6 cycles of chemotherapy. The RR (complete, 13 cases; partial, 20 cases) was 71.3% (95% confidence interval: 59.0%-84.5%)., Conclusion: The dd PTX with CBDCA is feasible and available as a treatment option for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer., Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: UMIN000017138., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2021. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: This study was to analyze patterns and risk factors of relapse after postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer., Methods: Among patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial (JGOG2043) investigating the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer at a high risk of progression, the recurrent patients were studied. Clinical information were collected, and correlation between relapse-related factors and clinicopathological factors were analyzed., Results: Among 193 patients analyzed, 50% had local relapse and 63% had distant relapse. Local relapse involved regional lymph nodes in 30%, while distant relapse involved the abdominal cavity in 42%. Imaging was used to confirm relapse in 83%, and the median disease-free interval (DFI) was 11.5 months. Factors showing a significant correlation with DFI ≤12 months were residual tumor at surgery (p < 0.01), Grade 3 histology (p < 0.01), and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.03). In contrast, treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin showed a significant correlation with DFI >12 months (p = 0.04). The median post-relapse overall survival (RS) was 23.9 months. In multivariate analysis, CA125 ≥ 100 U/mL prior to relapse (p < 0.01), distant metastasis (p < 0.01), DFI ≤ 12 months (p = 0.02), and not performing para-aortic lymphadenectomy (p = 0.01) were independently related to poor RS., Conclusions: Relapse of endometrial cancer following adjuvant chemotherapy often occurs by 1 year after treatment, with common relapse sites of the abdominal cavity and regional lymph nodes. Among treatment-related factors, RS was correlated with DFI and para-aortic lymphadenectomy., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant inherited disease caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair genes. Analysis for microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of protein expressions of disease-associated genes is used to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients. When losses of both MLH1 and PMS2 proteins are observed by IHC, MLH1 promoter methylation analysis is conducted to distinguish Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer from sporadic cancer., Case Presentation: Here we report a woman who developed endometrial cancer at the age of 49 years. She had a family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative aged 52 years) and stomach cancer (second-degree relative with the age of onset unknown). No other family history was present, and she failed to meet the Amsterdam II criteria for the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Losses of MLH1 and PMS2, but not MSH2 and MSH6, proteins were observed by IHC in endometrial cancer tissues. Because MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was detected in endometrial cancer tissue samples, the epigenetic silencing of MLH1 was suspected as the cause of the protein loss. However, because of the early onset of endometrial cancer and the positive family history, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome was also suspected. Therefore, we provided her with genetic counseling. After obtaining her consent, MLH1 promoter methylation testing and genetic testing of peripheral blood were performed. MLH1 promoter methylation was not observed in peripheral blood. However, genetic testing revealed a large deletion of exon 5 in MLH1; thus, we diagnosed the presence of Lynch syndrome., Conclusions: Both MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation may be observed in endometrial cancer. Therefore, even if MLH1 promoter hypermethylation is detected, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome cannot be excluded.

Background: This survey sought to determine Japanese gynecologists' attitudes concerning administering hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for patients after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC)., Methods: Eight hundred and eighty-eight members of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG) were asked to respond to an anonymous questionnaire on the JGOG website. The survey asked whether or not HRT was to be administered when surgery was performed (including a hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy) to treat EC before or after menopause. If HRT was not to be administered, respondents were asked the reason why. Respondents were presented with the same hypothetical patients that were featured in a previous survey in Germany, and differences in the mindsets of Japanese and German physicians were compared., Results: Responses from 363 individuals (response rate 40.9 %) were analyzed. Seventy-eight percent of physicians considered HRT for patients undergoing surgery before menopause. The most prevalent reason of refusal to prescribe HRT was the risk of EC recurrence. Forty-eight percent of physicians considered HRT for patients undergoing surgery after menopause. The most prevalent reasons of refusal of HRT were its limited benefit and the availability of alternative therapies. Sixty-five percent of Japanese physicians responded that they would administer HRT to patients with low risk of recurrence vs. 46 % of physicians in Germany (P < 0.0002). Forty-nine percent of Japanese physicians approved of prescribing HRT for patients with high risk of recurrence vs. 25 % of physicians in Germany (P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Many Japanese gynecologists have a favorable attitude toward prescribing HRT after treatment of EC.

Objective: This Phase II study was carried out to investigate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of topotecan in Japanese patients with relapsed ovarian carcinoma., Methods: Patients with relapsed ovarian carcinoma after having received one regimen containing platinum-based chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Topotecan was administered at 1.2 mg/m(2)/day for five consecutive days, repeated every 3 weeks., Results: Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. The response rate was 28.2% (95% confidence interval, 18.1-40.1%). Signs of myelosuppression, such as neutropenia (Grade 3, 12.5%; Grade 4, 83.3%), thrombocytopenia (Grade 3, 36.2%; Grade 4, 4.2%) and decreased hemoglobin (Grade 3, 36.1%; Grade 4, 11.1%), were the most common hematological toxicities. Grade 3 febrile neutropenia occurred in 5 (6.9%) patients. There was little intraindividual or interindividual variability in the pharmacokinetics of topotecan., Conclusions: Topotecan at 1.2 mg/m(2)/day is an effective and tolerable therapeutic option for Japanese patients with relapsed ovarian carcinoma.