Background The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow‐up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID‐19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications. Methods A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID‐19‐related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations. Findings We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard‐copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients’ age was 55 years (range: 18–89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID‐19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID‐19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow‐up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% ( n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID‐19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS A nxiety and D epression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3–12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8–13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS‐depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients’ anxiety. Interpretation Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID‐19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients’ communication and education.

Detecting pathogenic mutations in 13/50 genes examined at comparable frequencies in hrHPV(+) and hrHPV(-) tumors suggest that genetic mechanisms of the two routes of VSCC pathogenesis may be similar, despite being initiated from different premalignant lesions. Importantly, our data provide a rationale for new anti-VSCC therapies targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

No abstract

No abstract

Our study shows that conservative management is increasingly offered to women affected by early stage EC wishing to preserve their fertility. Further studies and joint registries are required to evaluate safety and effectiveness of this approach in this probably growing number of patients.

Tumor size and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage were independent prognostic factors associated with local and distant recurrence, respectively. Patients' age was the only independent prognostic factor associated with overall survival.

Female genital cosmetic surgeries (FGCSs) and procedures are increasingly being advertised as common, simple, and complication-free, capable of not only improving aesthetic appearance but also increasing self-esteem and sexual pleasure.Guidelines for physicians and clear, scientifically correct information for patients must be made available, to minimize the number of ineffective or deleterious procedures.The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease positions/recommendations regarding FGCS are as follows:1. There is a wide variation regarding genital normalcy; providers must be able to explain this to women.2. There are no data supporting FGCS including, G-spot augmentation, hymenoplasty, vulvar and perianal bleaching/whitening, vaginal tightening procedures, and other procedures aimed at increasing sexual function.3. Women should not be offered FGCS before the age of 18 years.4. Women undergoing FGCS should be evaluated by a provider with expertise in vulvovaginal diseases, including attention to their psychological, social, and sexual context. Evaluation by an experienced mental health provider should be considered when the motivation for seeking surgery and/or expectations are not clear or realistic.5. Female genital cosmetic surgery is not exempt from complications.6. Informed consent must always be obtained.7. Surgeons performing FGCS should refrain from solicitous advertising or promoting procedures without scientific basis, including on Web sites.8. Surgeons should not perform surgery that they do not agree with and explain their rationale/position when pressured by patients.9. The genital surgeon must be adequately trained in performing FGCS including knowledge of the anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of the vulva, vagina and adjacent organs.

The endometrial cancer (EC)-specific Quality of Life module of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), was developed and validated in one study. We independently validated and assessed the psychometric properties of the instrument. Two hundred and eight women with EC before surgery, during adjuvant treatment and follow-up; in three different cancer centres completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EN24. The questionnaire's completion rate was 100%, except sexuality items, that were answered by 35% of patients.All item-scale correlations for the multi-item scales exceeded the .4 criterion and correlated well with their own scale, while correlations with the other scales were low.The internal consistency of all multi-item scales were satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .77 to .97). Discriminance for single-item scales was low. The QLQ-EN24 module discriminated well between clinically different patients, and there were no differences in quality of life questionnaire scales between patients with body mass index ≤30 when compared to those with >30. This validation study supports the reliability, as well as convergent and divergent validity of the EORTC QLQ-EN24. The module is a useful instrument for the assessment of QOL in patients with EC. However, data concerning sexuality should be interpreted with caution. K E Y W O R D Sendometrial cancer, quality of life, questionnaire, validation