Purpose We compared the efficacy and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus standard cisplatin-based chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced squamous cervical cancer. Patients and Methods This was a single-center, phase III, randomized controlled trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00193739). Eligible patients were between 18 and 65 years old and had stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer. They were randomly assigned, after stratification by stage, to receive either three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using paclitaxel and carboplatin once every 3 weeks followed by radical hysterectomy or standard radiotherapy with concomitant cisplatin once every week for 5 weeks. Patients in the neoadjuvant group received postoperative adjuvant radiation or concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, if indicated. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as survival without relapse or death related to cancer, and secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. Results Between September 2003 and February 2015, 635 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 633 (316 patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery group and 317 patients in the concomitant chemoradiation group) were included in the final analysis, with a median follow-up time of 58.5 months. The 5-year DFS in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery group was 69.3% compared with 76.7% in the concomitant chemoradiation group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.87; P = .038), whereas the corresponding 5-year OS rates were 75.4% and 74.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.025; 95% CI, 0.752 to 1.398; P = .87). The delayed toxicities at 24 months or later after treatment completion in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery group versus the concomitant chemoradiation group were rectal (2.2% v 3.5%, respectively), bladder (1.6% v 3.5%, respectively), and vaginal (12.0% v 25.6%, respectively). Conclusion Cisplatin-based concomitant chemoradiation resulted in superior DFS compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer.

Context.— Controversies and uncertainty persist in prostate cancer grading. Objective.— To update grading recommendations. Data Sources.— Critical review of the literature along with pathology and clinician surveys. Conclusions.— Percent Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4) is as follows: (1) report %GP4 in needle biopsy with Grade Groups (GrGp) 2 and 3, and in needle biopsy on other parts (jars) of lower grade in cases with at least 1 part showing Gleason score (GS) 4 + 4 = 8; and (2) report %GP4: less than 5% or less than 10% and 10% increments thereafter. Tertiary grade patterns are as follows: (1) replace “tertiary grade pattern” in radical prostatectomy (RP) with “minor tertiary pattern 5 (TP5),” and only use in RP with GrGp 2 or 3 with less than 5% Gleason pattern 5; and (2) minor TP5 is noted along with the GS, with the GrGp based on the GS. Global score and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies are as follows: (1) when multiple undesignated cores are taken from a single MRI-targeted lesion, an overall grade for that lesion is given as if all the involved cores were one long core; and (2) if providing a global score, when different scores are found in the standard and the MRI-targeted biopsy, give a single global score (factoring both the systematic standard and the MRI-targeted positive cores). Grade Groups are as follows: (1) Grade Groups (GrGp) is the terminology adopted by major world organizations; and (2) retain GS 3 + 5 = 8 in GrGp 4. Cribriform carcinoma is as follows: (1) report the presence or absence of cribriform glands in biopsy and RP with Gleason pattern 4 carcinoma. Intraductal carcinoma (IDC-P) is as follows: (1) report IDC-P in biopsy and RP; (2) use criteria based on dense cribriform glands (>50% of the gland is composed of epithelium relative to luminal spaces) and/or solid nests and/or marked pleomorphism/necrosis; (3) it is not necessary to perform basal cell immunostains on biopsy and RP to identify IDC-P if the results would not change the overall (highest) GS/GrGp part per case; (4) do not include IDC-P in determining the final GS/GrGp on biopsy and/or RP; and (5) “atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP)” is preferred for an intraductal proliferation of prostatic secretory cells which shows a greater degree of architectural complexity and/or cytological atypia than typical high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, yet falling short of the strict diagnostic threshold for IDC-P. Molecular testing is as follows: (1) Ki67 is not ready for routine clinical use; (2) additional studies of active surveillance cohorts are needed to establish the utility of PTEN in this setting; and (3) dedicated studies of RNA-based assays in active surveillance populations are needed to substantiate the utility of these expensive tests in this setting. Artificial intelligence and novel grading schema are as follows: (1) incorporating reactive stromal grade, percent GP4, minor tertiary GP5, and cribriform/intraductal carcinoma are not ready for adoption in current practice.

No abstract

No abstract