Search

Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. 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. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: 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. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESP 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. publishersversion published

Background: The CA-125 tumor marker has limitations when used to distinguish between benign and malignant ovarian masses. We therefore establish likelihood curves of six subgroups of ovarian pathology based on CA-125 and menopausal status.Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group involved 3,511 patients presenting with a persistent adnexal mass that underwent surgical intervention. CA-125 distributions for six tumor subgroups (endometriomas and abscesses, other benign tumors, borderline tumors, stage I invasive cancers, stage II–IV invasive cancers, and metastatic tumors) were estimated using kernel density estimation with stratification for menopausal status. Likelihood curves for the tumor subgroups were derived from the distributions.Results: Endometriomas and abscesses were the only benign pathologies with median CA-125 levels above 20 U/mL (43 and 45, respectively). Borderline and invasive stage I tumors had relatively low median CA-125 levels (29 and 81 U/mL, respectively). The CA-125 distributions of stage II–IV invasive cancers and benign tumors other than endometriomas or abscesses were well separated; the distributions of the other subgroups overlapped substantially. This held for premenopausal and postmenopausal patients. Likelihood curves and reference tables comprehensibly show how subgroup likelihoods change with CA-125 and menopausal status.Conclusions and Impact: Our results confirm the limited clinical value of CA-125 for preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian pathology. We have shown that CA-125 may be used in a different way. By using likelihood reference tables, we believe clinicians will be better able to interpret preoperative serum CA-125 results in patients with adnexal masses. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(11); 2420–8. ©2011 AACR.

Supplementary Tables 1-5, Figure 1 from A Novel Approach to Predict the Likelihood of Specific Ovarian Tumor Pathology Based on Serum CA-125: A Multicenter Observational Study

BackgroundThe role of adjuvant treatment in the intermediate-risk group of patients with early-stage cervical cancer is controversial and is supported by a single randomized Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 92 study performed more than 20 years ago. Recent retrospective studies have shown excellent local control in this group of patients after radical surgery with no additional adjuvant treatment.Primary ObjectiveTo evaluate if adjuvant (chemo)radiation is associated with a survival benefit after radical surgery in patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer.Study HypothesisRadical surgery alone is non-inferior to the combined treatment of radical surgery followed by adjuvant (chemo)radiation in disease-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer.Trial DesignThis is a phase III, international, multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial in which patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer will be randomized 1:1 into arm A, with no additional treatment after radical surgery, and arm B, receiving adjuvant external beam radiotherapy±brachytherapy ± concomitant chemotherapy. Patient data will be collected over 3 years post-randomization of the last enrolled patient for primary endpoint analysis or for 6 years for the overall survival analysis.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaPatients with intermediate-risk early-stage cervical cancer (IB1–IIA), defined as lymph node-negative patients with a combination of negative prognostic factors (tumor size >4 cm; tumor size >2 cm and lymphovascular space invasion; deep stromal invasion >2/3; or tumor-free distance Primary EndpointDisease-free survival defined as time from randomization to recurrence diagnosis.Sample Size514 patients from up to 90 sites will be randomized.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsIt is estimated that the accrual will be completed by 2027 (with 3 additional years of follow-up) and primary endpoint results will be published by 2031. Estimated trial completion is by 2034.Trial RegistrationNCT04989647.

Objective: To summarize recent data and knowledge of laparoscopic power morcellation. Methods: Review of articles. Results: Laparoscopic morcellation has been introduced to gynecologic surgery in 90’s. In 2014, Food and Drug Administration announced negative statement about the morcellation use due to the risk of potential spreading of malignant tumor cells. This statement reduced utilization of morcellation, especially in the United States. Since that, many health institutions and organizations started new researches focused on the safety of this surgical technique. After a couple of years, the morcellation is considered as a useful tool if certain rules are followed. Conclusion: Morcellation has a place in laparoscopic operative procedures even in 2022, in condition of correct selection of patients and possible utilization of contained in-bag morcellation. Key words: hysterectomy – laparoscopy – morcellation – myomectomy

BACKGROUND: Up to 26% of patients with early-stage cervical cancer experience relapse after primary surgery. However, little is known about which factors influence prognosis following disease recurrence. Therefore, our aims were to determine post-recurrence disease-specific survival (PR-DSS) and to identify respective prognostic factors for PR-DSS.METHODS: Data from 528 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who relapsed after primary surgery performed between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the SCANN study (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer). Factors related to the primary disease and recurrence were combined in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to predict PR-DSS.RESULTS: The 5-year PR-DSS was 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.7%-44.5%), median disease-free interval between primary surgery and recurrence (DFI1) was 1.5 years, and median survival after recurrence was 2.5 years. Six significant variables were identified in the multivariable analysis and were used to construct the prognostic model. Two were related to primary treatment (largest tumour size and lymphovascular space invasion) and four to recurrence (DFI1, age at recurrence, presence of symptoms, and recurrence type). The C-statistic after 10-fold cross-validation of prognostic model reached 0.701 (95% CI 0.675-0.727). Three risk-groups with significantly differing prognoses were identified, with 5-year PR-DSS rates of 81.8%, 44.6%, and 12.7%.CONCLUSIONS: We developed the robust model of PR-DSS to stratify patients with relapsed cervical cancer according to risk profiles using six routinely recorded prognostic markers. The model can be utilised in clinical practice to aid decision-making on the strategy of recurrence management, and to better inform the patients.