Search

Competing Interests: Competing interests: IR-C has reported advisory boards for Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, Blueprint, BMS, ESAÏ, Daichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Macrogenics, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro and Clovis, and grants for traveling from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Chugai and GSK; PG-C has reported Institution research grants from Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, Foghorn Ther Inc, Glaxo, Hutchinson MediPharam Lt, Inhibrx Inc, Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, PTC Ther, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Rain Oncology, and SpringWorks Ther; RJ has reported advisory boards for Adaptimmune, Astex, Athenex, Bayer, Borhringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizume, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Immunicum, Karma Oncology, Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, PharmaMar, Springworks, SynOx, Tracon, and Upto Date; RS has reported grants for traveling from ParmaMar; FA has reported advisory boards for MiMark; J-YB has reported advisory boards for Deciphera, Bayer and Roche, and grants for traveling from OSE Pharma (unrelated); JM-B has reported advisory boards for Asofarma, Tecnofarma, FarmaMar, GSK, Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Roche, Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar; AC has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca and EISAI, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar, Merck and AstraZeneca; APDT has reported advisory boards for GSK, Boehringer and Novartis Oncology, and grants for traveling from PharmaMar; MLH has reported advisory boards for Aadi; PH has reported advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and PharmaMar, and grants for traveling from Boehringer Ingelheim, PharmaMar, and Lighthouse PTC; PP has reported advisory boards for PharmaMar and MSD, and grants for traveling from Amgen, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, and MSD; ARAR has reported research support (institutional) from 23&Me, Abbisko, AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biontech, Blueprint Medicine, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cogent Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Frontier Biopharma, Gilead, GSK, Iterion Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MedImmune, Medison, Merck, Neoleukin, Novartis, Pfizer, Polaris, Roche/Genentech, Rain Therapeutics, and Symphogen, expert testimony/advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and Medison, DSMB (self) for Inhibrx, and honorarium (self) from Journal of Clinical Oncology, Medison and UpToDate; JS has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Novocure, Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH, Seagan, Bayer Vital, GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, PharmaMar, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Immunogen, Tubulis GmbH, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grants for traveling from AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Novocure, Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH, Seagan, Bayer Vital, GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH; PharmaMar, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Immunogen, Tubulis GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo; WvH has reported advisory boards for Sanofi, Belpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Novartis, and grants for traveling from Sanofi; MF has reported consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GSK, and Incyclix, payment for honoraria for lectures, presentations, spearkers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, and Limbic, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AGITG IDSMB, and ENDO-3, and research grants (institution) from AstraZeneca, Beigene and Novartis; SCr, FMF, DF, IZ, SCh, RH, J-WK, SIK, MMM, and FP have reported no conflicts of interest.

Introduction: Assessment of retroperitoneal nodes is an important part of the surgical staging of gynecologic cancers. Although pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy have been widely described by different authors, there is little consensus on the description of the different surgical steps for each procedure. An Intergroup Committee on Onco-Gyn Minimally Invasive Surgery has been established with members of the European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS). The Intergroup Committee has various objectives: writing down a surgical description of the technique, which will be assessed by a group of experts following a formal consensus method and developing a specific Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scale for each procedure., Methods: A hierarchical task analysis was conducted by a working group of eight experts from the three societies in order to identify the surgical steps of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach in paraaortic lymphadenectomy. The selection of the definitive surgical steps was confirmed by a group of 19 experts from the different societies, following a formal consensus method. Two rounds of Delphi panel rating were considered necessary for achieving an agreement. The consensus agreement identified 29 surgical steps in transperitoneal and 17 surgical steps in extraperitoneal approach to complete a paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Once the description of the procedure and the consensus were established, an Objective specific Scale for the Assessment of Technical Skills for Paraaortic lymphadenectomy (PA-OSATS) in the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach was developed., Results: In the first round of rating we found that 28 steps out of 29 in the transperitoneal approach and 13 out of 17 in the extraperitoneal approach did not reach a strong degree of agreement. They were reformulated based on comments made by the experts, and submitted to a second round of rating and this finally achieved an agreement., Conclusion: We defined a list of surgical steps in transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach in paraaortic lymphadenectomy and a specific PA-OSATS scale for these procedures. This tool will be useful for teaching, assessing and standardizing this surgical procedure., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AEB has reported grants for travelling from Olympus; AF has reported advisory boards for Johnson & Johnson, Fondazione Internazionale Menarini and Oncoinvent, research support from AstraZeneca/MSD, and speakers bureau for GlaxoSmithKline and Covidien/Medtronic; RR, LM, FP, HF, MB, DQ, and CT have reported no conflicts of interest., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 IGCS and ESGO. This is an open access article under the CC BY license. Published by BMJ.)

Study Question: How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?, Summary Answer: Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma., What Is Known Already: The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment., Study Design Size Duration: A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide., Participants/materials Setting Methods: ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues., Limitations Reasons for Caution: Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group., Wider Implications of the Findings: These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario., Study Funding/competing Interests: All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest., Disclaimer: This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation . The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type ., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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.)

The European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) guidelines cover the whole field of common clinical situations in gynecologic oncology. Their elaboration follows a strict process including a systematic review of the literature, the setting up of a group of expert on the basis of scientific production, geographical balance, and multidisciplinarity, and an external review by users and patients. The recommendations for the management of vulvar cancer were elaborated in 2015 and published in 2017. They are available in open access on the ESGO website, and can be incorporated in clinical practice using the free ESGO guidelines smartphone application. This review is a selection of the sections addressing the diagnostic and strategical aspects of the management of lymph nodal disease in vulvar cancer. An additional review of the recent literature published since 2015 has been carried out. The management of nodal disease in vulvar cancer encompasses a diagnostic and a therapeutic component. Clinical and imaging assessment still play a major role, whilst the identification of the sentinel node is currently a mainstay of assessment of the nodal status in early vulvar cancer. The therapeutic component is based on the rational use of full lymph node dissection and (chemo)radiation., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Faced to an undetermined ovarian mass on ultrasound, an MRI is recommended and the ROMA score (combining CA125 and HE4) can be proposed (grade A). In case of suspected early stage ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, omentectomy (at least infracolonic), appendectomy, multiple peritoneal biopsies, peritoneal cytology (grade C) and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy are recommended (grade B) for all histological types, except for the expansive mucinous subtype where lymphadenectomy may be omitted (grade C). Minimally invasive surgery is recommended for early stage ovarian cancer, if there is no risk of tumor rupture (grade B). Adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel is recommended for all high-grade ovarian or Fallopian tube cancers, stage FIGO I-IIA (grade A). In case of ovarian, Fallopian tube or primitive peritoneal cancer of FIGO III-IV stages, thoraco-abdomino-pelvic CT scan with injection (grade B) is recommended. Laparoscopic exploration for multiple biopsies (grade A) and to evaluate carcinomatosis score (at least using the Fagotti score) (grade C) are recommended to estimate the possibility of a complete surgery (i.e. no macroscopic residue). Complete medial laparotomy surgery is recommended for advanced cancers (grade B). It is recommended in advanced cancers to perform para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in case of clinical or radiological suspicion of metastatic lymph node (grade B). In the absence of clinical or radiological lymphadenopathy and in case of complete peritoneal surgery during an initial surgery for advanced cancer, it is possible not to perform a lymphadenectomy because it does not modify the medical treatment and the overall survival (grade B). Primary surgery is recommended when no tumor residue is possible (grade B). After a complete first surgery, it is recommended to deliver 6 cycles of intravenous (grade A) or to propose intraperitoneal (grade B) chemotherapy, to be discussed with patient, according to the benefit/risk ratio. After a complete interval surgery for a FIGO III stage, the hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be proposed in the same conditions of the OV-HIPEC trial (grade B). In case of tumor residue after surgery or FIGO stage IV, chemotherapy associated with bevacizumab is recommended (grade A)., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite significant advances in the screening, detection, and treatment of preinvasive cervical lesions, invasive cervical cancer is the fifth most common cancer in European women. There are large disparities in Europe and worldwide in the incidence, management, and mortality of cervical cancer., Objective: The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines in order to improve the quality of care for women with cervical cancer across Europe and worldwide., Methods: The ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of cervical cancer (23 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence based, the current literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 159 international reviewers, selected through ESGO/ESTRO/ESP and including patient representatives., Results: The guidelines cover comprehensively staging, management, and follow-up for patients with cervical cancer. Management includes fertility sparing treatment; stage T1a, T1b1/T2a1, clinically occult cervical cancer diagnosed after simple hysterectomy; early and locally advanced cervical cancer; primary distant metastatic disease; cervical cancer in pregnancy; and recurrent disease. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are defined.

Introduction: Rare ovarian tumors include complex borderline ovarian tumors, sex-cord tumors, germ cell tumors, and rare epithelial tumors. Indications and modalities of fertility preservation, infertility management and contraindications for hormonal contraception or menopause hormone therapy are frequent issues in clinical practice. A panel of experts from the French national network dedicated to rare gynaecological cancers, and of experts in reproductive medicine and gynaecology have worked on guidelines about fertility preservation, contraception and menopause hormone therapy in women treated for ovarian rare tumors., Methods: A panel of 39 experts from different specialties contributed to the preparation of the guidelines, following the DELPHI method (formal consensus method). Statements were drafted after a systematic literature review, and then rated through two successive rounds., Results: Thirty-five recommendations were selected, and concerned indications for fertility preservation, contraindications for ovarian stimulation (in the context of fertility preservation or for infertility management), contraceptive options (especially hormonal ones), and menopause hormone therapy for each tumor type. Overall, prudence has been recommended in the case of potentially hormone-sensitive tumors such as sex cord tumors, serous and endometrioid low-grade adenocarcinomas, as well as for high-risk serous borderline ovarian tumors., Discussion: In the context of a scarce literature, a formal consensus method allowed the elaboration of guidelines, which will help clinicians in the management of these patients., (Copyright © 2017 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Surgery has evolved as a mainstay of the management of ovarian cancer since evidence of the major benefit of complete surgery, i.e. achieving complete resection of the disease without visible macroscopic residue in a comprehensively explored abdominal cavity, has been made available. This objective may be difficult to complete in case of advanced ovarian cancer, as it requires the use of advanced techniques of peritoneal and visceral surgery, in the setting of adapted perioperative care, generally in institutions where the caseload is sufficient to ensure an appropriate surgical experience, and where specifically trained surgeons are available. In this paper using the data from the French national database PMSI, evidence of an evolution of the proportion of patients managed in centers where more than 20 patients a year are operated is shown. However, the recommendations of the governmental Plans Cancers are far from universally implemented., (Copyright © 2016 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The last years are marked by the emergence of new molecules for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma with a significant benefit on the survival. Besides, some techniques are in development for the loco-regional treatment of the metastatic sites, bringing new therapeutic perspectives. However, their respective use and place in the therapeutic strategy are debated by healthcare professionals., Objective: The French National Cancer Institute leads a national clinical practice guidelines project since 2008. It realized a review of these modalities of treatment and developed recommendations., Methods: The clinical practice guidelines development process is based on systematic literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary expert workgroup. The recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines are reviewed by independent practitioners in cancer care delivery., Results: This article presents recommendations for loco-regional treatments of the pulmonary, bone, cutaneous, hepatic and digestive metastatic sites for patients with pauci-metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

Context: Ovarian cancers represent the 4th cause of mortality by cancer for women in France and were responsible of more than 3,000 deaths in 2005. The Standards, Options: Recommendations (SOR) project has been undertaken by the French National Federation of Cancers Centers is now part of the French National Cancer Institute since the 1st of may 2008. The project involves the development and updating of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in oncology. Following the monitoring process, we identified new data conferring sufficient elements to justify an updating of the CPG concerning the surgical, the medical fi rst-line and consolidation treatments of epithelial ovarian cancers., Objectives: To update the CPG according to the methodology SOR.