Introduction
Endometrial cancer patients with high grade tumours, deep myometrial invasion, or advanced stage disease have a poor prognosis. Randomized studies have demonstrated prevention of loco-regional relapses with radiotherapy with no effect on overall survival. The possible additive effect of chemotherapy remains unclear. Two randomized clinical trials (NSGO-EC-9501/EORTC-55991 and MaNGO ILIADE-III) were undertaken to clarify if sequential combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves progression-free survival in high-risk endometrial cancer. The two studies were pooled.
Methods
Patients (n=540; 534 evaluable) with operated endometrial cancer FIGO stage I-III with no residual tumour and prognostic factors implying high-risk were randomly allocated to adjuvant radiotherapy with or without sequential chemotherapy.
Results
In the NSGO/EORTC study, combined modality treatment was associated with a 36 % reduction in the risk for relapse or death (HR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.41-0.99; P=0.04); two-sided tests were used. The result from the MaNGO-study pointed in the same direction (HR 0.61), but was not significant. In combined analysis, the estimate of risk for relapse or death was similar but with narrower confidence limits (HR 0.63, CI 0.44-0.89; P=0.009). Neither study showed significant differences in overall survival. In combined analysis, overall survival approached statistical significance (HR 0.69, CI 0.46-1.03; P = 0.07) and cancer-specific survival was significant (HR 0.55, CI 0.35-0.88; p=0.01).
Conclusion
Addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to radiation improves progression-free survival in operated endometrial cancer patients with no residual tumour and high risk profile. A remaining question for future studies is if addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves the results.
ObjectiveTo present an update of the European Group on Tumor Markers guidelines for serum markers in epithelial ovarian cancer.MethodsSystematic literature survey from 2008 to 2013. The articles were evaluated by level of evidence and strength of recommendation.ResultsBecause of its low sensitivity (50–62% for early stage epithelial ovarian cancer) and limited specificity (94–98.5%), cancer antigen (CA) 125 (CA125) is not recommended as a screening test in asymptomatic women. The Risk of Malignancy Index, which includes CA125, transvaginal ultrasound, and menopausal status, is recommended for the differential diagnosis of a pelvic mass. Because human epididymis protein 4 has been reported to have superior specificity to CA125, especially in premenopausal women, it may be considered either alone or as part of the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm, in the differential diagnosis of pelvic masses, especially in such women. CA125 should be used to monitor response to first-line chemotherapy using the previously published criteria of the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup, that is, at least a 50% reduction of a pretreatment sample of 70 kU/L or greater. The value of CA125 in posttherapy surveillance is less clear. Although a prospective randomized trial concluded that early administration of chemotherapy based on increasing CA125 levels had no effect on survival, European Group on Tumor Markers state that monitoring with CA125 in this situation should occur, especially if the patient is a candidate for secondary cytoreductive surgery.ConclusionsAt present, CA125 remains the most important biomarker for epithelial ovarian cancer, excluding tumors of mucinous origin.
Single-agent volasertib showed antitumor activity in patients with ovarian cancer. AEs in patients receiving volasertib were mainly hematologic and manageable.
Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) on the risk of lymph node metastases and survival in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. Material and methods: As regard the study design, this is a cohort study based on prospectively recorded data. Patients with endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma registered in the Swedish Quality Registry for Gynecologic Cancer 2010-2017 with FIGO stages I-III and verified nodal status were identified (n ¼ 1587). LVSI together with established risk factors, namely DNA ploidy, FIGO grade, myometrial invasion and age, were included in multivariable regression analyses with lymph node metastases as the dependent variable. Associations between the risk factors and overall and relative survival were included in multivariable models. Estimates of risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR), excess mortality rate ratios (EMR), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. Results: The presence of LVSI presented the strongest association with lymph node metastases (RR ¼ 5.46, CI 3.69-8.07, p < .001) followed by deep myometrial invasion (RR ¼ 1.64, CI 1.13-2.37). In the multivariable survival analyses, LVSI (EMR ¼ 7.69, CI 2.03-29.10,) and non-diploidy (EMR ¼ 3.23, CI 1.25-8.41) were associated with decreased relative survival. In sub-analyses including only patients with complete para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy and negative lymph nodes (n ¼ 404), only LVSI (HR ¼ 2.50, CI 1.05-5.98) was associated with a worsened overall survival. Conclusion: This large nationwide study identified LVSI as the strongest independent risk factor for lymph node metastases and decreased survival in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinomas. Moreover, decreased overall survival was also seen in patients with LVSI-positive tumors and negative lymph nodes, indicating that hematogenous dissemination might also be important.
The data in the Swedish Quality Register for Gynecologic Cancer are of adequate quality in order to be used as a basis for research and to evaluate possible differences in treatment, lead times and treatment results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.