While screening programs and HPV vaccination have decreased the incidence of cervical cancer, still over 13,000 cases occur in the United States annually. Early stage cervical cancer has an excellent long-term prognosis, with 5-year survival for localized disease being >90%. Survival decreases markedly for both locally advanced and metastatic disease, and both are associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Few effective treatment options exist for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In 2014, the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab was approved in combination with chemotherapy based on the results of the phase III GOG-240 study. As the majority of cervical cancers have a viral etiology, which impairs the immune system, immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors and other agents, appears to be a promising approach. In June 2018, the US FDA approved the anti-PD1 antibody pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with PD-L1 expression that progressed after one or more lines of chemotherapy. Another anti-PD1 antibody, cemiplimab also shows potential in this setting, either as monotherapy or combined with radiotherapy, and it is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Additional checkpoint inhibitors including nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, and camrelizumab are in different stages of clinical development for the disease. Finally, an additional targeted approach being pursued are PARP inhibitors (rucaparib and olaparib are both in phase II) based on earlier study results.

ObjectiveTo determine how sociodemographic factors impact cervical cancer survival in different geographic locations in the USA.MethodsA retrospective cohort of patients with cervical cancer from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2015 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was identified. Tumor characteristics as well as race, income, insurance type, and treating facility types were compared among nine geographic regions. χ2 tests and Cox regression were used to compare differences between regions; p values <0.05 were considered significant.ResultsA total of 48 787 patients were included. Survival was inferior in seven of nine regions for underinsured patients. In six regions survival was inferior for Medicaid and Medicare patients, respectively: Middle Atlantic: hazard ratio (HR) 1.25 and 1.22; South Atlantic: HR 1.41 and HR 1.22; East North Central: HR 1.36 and HR 1.25; East South Central: HR 1.37 and HR 1.25; West North Central: HR 1.67 and HR 1.42; West South Central: HR 1.44 and HR 1.46. In the Pacific region survival was inferior for Medicare patients (HR 1.35) but not inferior for Medicaid patients. Being uninsured was associated with worse survival in the South Atlantic (HR 1.23), East North Central (HR 1.23), East South Central (HR 1.56), and West South Central (HR 1.31) regions. Annual income level under $38 000 was associated with worse survival in the Middle Atlantic (HR 1.24), South Atlantic (HR 1.35), and East North Central (HR 1.49) regions. Lastly, when compared with academic research institutions, comprehensive community cancer centers had significantly worse survival in four of the nine regions.ConclusionsCervical cancer mortality is higher for women with a low income, underinsured (Medicaid or Medicare) or uninsured status, and decreased access to academic institutions in most US regions. An increase in cervical cancer mortality was associated with underinsured or uninsured populations in regions mainly located in the South and Midwest.

Cervical cancer is associated with profound socioeconomic and racial disparities in incidence, mortality, morbidity, and years of life lost. The last standard-of-care treatment innovation for locally advanced cervical cancer occurred in 1999, when cisplatin chemotherapy was added to pelvic radiation therapy (chemoradiation therapy). Chemoradiation therapy is associated with a 30%-50% failure rate, and there is currently no cure for recurrent or metastatic disease. The enormity of the worldwide clinical problem of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality as well as the egregiously unchanged mortality rate over the last several decades are recognized by the National Institutes of Health as urgent priorities. This is reflected within the Office of Research on Women's Health effort to advance National Institutes of Health research on the health of women, as highlighted in a recent symposium. In the current review, the authors address the state of the science and opportunities to improve cervical cancer survival with an emphasis on improving access, using technology in innovative and widely implementable ways, and improving current understanding of cervical cancer biology. Lay summary:� Cervical cancer is associated with profound socioeconomic and racial disparities in incidence, mortality, morbidity, and years of life lost. � In this review, the state of the science and opportunities to improve cervical cancer survival are presented with an emphasis on improving access, using See commentary on pages 4041-6 and referenced review article on pages 4063-73, this issue.

Care of the growing number of liver transplant recipients will increasingly fall on the referring centres. Thus, there is a need to define more clearly the demographic, clinical and laboratory profiles of liver transplant recipients, particularly in the setting of a centre where a liver transplantation program does not exist. The present study documented these features in 37 patients attending an adult ambulatory care clinic in an urban, nonliver transplant centre. Mean +/- SD age of the study population was 44 +/- 11.9 years. Twenty-one patients (57%) were male. Annual enrolment in the clinic increased from three patients at the completion of the clinic's first year (1988) to 16 patients in the final year of the study (1993). Time between the transplantation procedure and the patient's return to the referring centre decreased from a mean of 12 weeks in 1988 to four weeks in 1993. During those seven years no patient required an unscheduled return to the transplant centre for surgical complications or problems associated with immuno-suppressive therapy. In conclusion, these data provide a profile of liver transplant patients attending a nonliver transplant centre for follow-up and support the concept that nontransplant centres are capable of providing safe and, in terms of travel, less expensive care for liver transplant recipients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract