Search

Background: Before the era of immunotherapies and antibody-drug conjugates, there were limited chemotherapeutic options for patients with recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Combination therapies with cisplatin have shown some superiority over monotherapy. This study examined platinum-free treatment regimens, comparing a combination of topotecan and paclitaxel (TP) with topotecan and cisplatin (TC) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, with or without prior platinum-based treatment., Methods: The AGO-Zervix-1 Study (NCT01405235) is a prospective, randomized phase III study in which patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to treatment within the control arm with topotecan (0.75 mg/m 2 ) on days 1-3 and cisplatin (50 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks and in the study arm topotecan (1.75 mg/m 2 ) and paclitaxel (70 mg/m 2 ) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or treatment. The primary study aim was overall survival; progression-free survival, toxicity, and quality of life were secondary aims. The interim and final analysis is here reported after recruitment of 173 of 312 planned patients., Results: Median overall survival in the TP arm was 9.6 months, compared with 12.0 months in the TC arm (log-rank test, P = 0.33). Median progression-free survival rates were 4.4 months with TP and 4.2 months with TC (log-rank test, P = 0.47). Leukopenia and nausea/vomiting were more frequent in the cisplatin-containing arm. Otherwise, toxicity profiles were comparable. There were no differences in FACT-G-assessed quality of life., Conclusion: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care chemotherapy regimen for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. I.V. reports Consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Regeneron, Seagen, Verastem Oncology, Zai Lab, Zentalis. P.H. declares honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, Clovis, Eisai, Mersana, Exscientia, Advisory Board participations from Astra Zeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, Eisai and Research Funding (Inst) from Astra Zeneca, Roche, GSK, Genmab, DFG, European Union, DKH, Immunogen, Seagen, Clovis, Novartis. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Like other uterine sarcomas, low-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas (LG-ESS) are a very rare tumor entity. In the past, research studies therefore discussed the various different types of the disease in combination. In addition, the classification of endometrial stromal tumors presented difficulties for quite some time so that in earlier studies it was not always possible to precisely distinguish between LG-ESS, high-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma, and undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. For LG-ESS, surgery with hysterectomy and adnexectomy is the first-line treatment. The benefits of lymphadenectomy and tumor debulking are unclear. Endocrine therapy with gestagens and aromatase inhibitors is under discussion to provide adjuvant treatment for patients with advanced stages of the disease. As radiotherapy only provides locoregional control, and in view of the usually good prognosis of patients with LG-ESS, its benefits need to be weighed against its side effects. In the case of recurrence, repeat surgery is the first choice. Further research studies viewing LG-ESS as a distinct entity are needed in order to improve treatment options for patients with LG-ESS., (© 2018 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

Aim of the Study: A tumour-free pathological resection margin of ≥8 mm is considered state-of-the-art. Available evidence is based on heterogeneous cohorts. This study was designed to clarify the relevance of the resection margin for loco-regional control in vulvar cancer., Methods: AGO-CaRE-1 is a large retrospective study. Patients (n = 1618) with vulvar cancer ≥ FIGO stage IB treated at 29 German gynecologic-cancer-centres 1998-2008 were included. This subgroup analysis focuses on solely surgically treated node-negative patients with complete tumour resection (n = 289)., Results: Of the 289 analysed patients, 141 (48.8%) had pT1b, 140 (48.4%) pT2 and 8 (2.8%) pT3 tumours. One hundred twenty-five (43.3%) underwent complete vulvectomy, 127 (43.9%) partial vulvectomy and 37 (12.8%) radical local excision. The median minimal resection margin was 5 mm (1 mm-33 mm); all patients received groin staging, in 86.5% with full dissection. Median follow-up was 35.1 months. 46 (15.9%) patients developed recurrence, thereof 34 (11.8%) at the vulva, after a median of 18.3 months. Vulvar recurrence rates were 12.6% in patients with a margin <8 mm and 10.2% in patients with a margin ≥8 mm. When analysed as a continuous variable, the margin distance had no statistically significant impact on local recurrence (HR per mm increase: 0.930, 95% CI: 0.849-1.020; p = 0.125). Multivariate analyses did also not reveal a significant association between the margin and local recurrence neither when analysed as continuous variable nor categorically based on the 8 mm cutoff. Results were consistent when looking at disease-free-survival and time-to-recurrence at any site (HR per mm increase: 0.949, 95% CI: 0.864-1.041; p = 0.267)., Conclusions: The need for a minimal margin of 8 mm could not be confirmed in the large and homogeneous node-negative cohort of the AGO-CaRE database., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the activity and toxicity of fulvestrant, a pure estrogen receptor antagonist in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, expressing estrogen and/or progesterone receptors (ER/PR)., Methods: Eligible patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer not amenable to curative surgery and/or radiotherapy were treated with fulvestrant at a dose of 250 mg by IM injection every 4 weeks for at least 12 weeks. Therapy was continued until disease progression, death, intolerable side effects or end of study. Response was assessed in patients with at least one target lesion according to WHO-criteria., Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study and received at least one injection of fulvestrant (intention to treat-population, ITT). Twenty six patients received the intended 3 injections of fulvestrant (per protocol population, PP). There was no complete response but 4 partial responses (11.4% ITT) and 8 stable diseases. The median time to progression was 2.3 months (ITT). Overall survival was 13.2 months (ITT). Treatment was well tolerated., Conclusions: Fulvestrant at a dose of 250 mg IM every 4 weeks has marginal activity and good tolerability in patients with ER and/or PR positive advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. A loading dose strategy and the use of 500 mg/4 weeks might improve the efficacy of this treatment., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)