International Journal of Gynecological Cancer最新文献

Objective: To compare rates of diverting ileostomy in patients with ovarian cancer, undergoing cytoreduction with bowel resection before and after the acquisition of indocyanine green fluorescence angiographic scans for anastomotic perfusion assessment.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing bowel resection during cytoreductive surgery between 2010 and 2021. We evaluated whether using indocyanine green fluorescence angiography impacted rates of diverting ileostomy. Baseline characteristics and rates of diversion were compared between those who had indocyanine green fluorescence assessment and those with bowel resection without anastomotic fluorescence assessment.

Results: Overall, 181 patients were included. Of whom, 84 (46%) underwent anastomotic fluorescence assessment following bowel resection, and 97 (54%) had bowel resection without assessment. Mean age of the cohort was 58.2 years and 132 (73%) had stage III disease. There was no difference between groups in rates of diverting ileostomy (41% vs 41%, p=1.0). In a univariable logistic regression, the odds of having an ileostomy were 2.92 times higher in patients undergoing primary surgery than in patients undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery (95% CI 1.25 to 6.85, p=0.013). The use of fluorescence angiography did not predict performing diverting ileostomy (OR=0.97, 95% CI (0.53 to 1.76), p=0.92).

Conclusion: In this cohort, the simple introduction of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography had no impact on the rates of anastomotic diversion. Developing a systematic, reproducible diversion protocol with selection criteria that include fluorescence angiography is needed to assess the impact of this surgically innovative tool on the rates of anastomotic diversion in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Objective: We sought to describe the oncologic outcomes of isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas compared to an intraepithelial carcinoma found concurrently with microscopic high-grade serous carcinoma among patients with hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer who underwent risk-reducing surgery.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 32 high-risk patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C/D, BRIP1, or PALB2 pathogenic variants who were diagnosed with either isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma or concurrent serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and microscopic high-grade serous carcinoma following risk-reducing surgery between January 2006 and December 2023. Our population included patients who underwent surgery at our institution as well as those who had surgery elsewhere, but sought second opinions, follow-up care, or treatment at our institution. Data were gathered from medical and pathologic records, and pathologic specimens were re-reviewed by a gynecologic pathologist. Standard statistical methods were used to describe oncologic outcomes per group.

Results: Among 32 patients in the cohort, we found that 68.7% had a pathologic diagnosis of an incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, while 31.3% had a pathologic diagnosis of microscopic high-grade serous carcinoma with associated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. Notably, two patients (9%) with isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma developed primary peritoneal carcinoma within a median of 29 months after surgery. One-third of patients with microscopic cancer experienced recurrence despite receiving standard staging surgery and chemotherapy for early-stage disease. Most of the patients in the cohort were older at the time of risk-reducing surgery than recommended for their pathologic variant.

Conclusions: The study supports the critical need for timely risk-reducing surgery in high-risk populations, as well as a comprehensive pathologic examination along with vigilant post-operative surveillance. Consensus guidelines for management of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma are necessary to identify a group of patients at higher risk of progression to primary peritoneal carcinoma and optimize patient care.

Objective: Non-platinum chemotherapy is used in platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer patients but offers limited efficacy, especially in those who develop platinum resistance after ≤2 lines of platinum based chemotherapy. This phase II study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral niraparib plus etoposide in platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer.

Methods: Platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer patients after ≤2 lines of platinum based chemotherapy, histologically confirmed as non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, regardless of biomarker status, were eligible. Patients received niraparib with a starting dose of 200 mg/100 mg alternate once a day, and oral etoposide of 50 mg once a day, on days 1-20 of 30 days per cycle for a maximum of 6-8 cycles, followed by niraparib until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator assessed progression free survival.

Results: 29 patients were enrolled from 22 May 2020 to 3 February 2023; 26 patients were included in the efficacy analysis set as per protocol. Median progression free survival was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 to 4.4). Overall response rate was 26.9% (95% CI 8.7 to 45.2). Disease control rate was 57.7% (95% CI 37.3 to 78.0). Overall response rate in patients with a BRCA mutation and homologous recombination deficiency was 50% and 41.7%, respectively. Median progression free survival in patients with primary platinum resistance was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.6 to 5.3). 29 patients were included in the safety analysis set, and 8 (28%) patients experienced treatment related adverse events of grade ≥3. There was no treatment related discontinuation.

Conclusions: Niraparib combined with etoposide showed evidence of antitumor activity in platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer after ≤2 lines of platinum based chemotherapy, particularly in patients with a BRCA mutation, homologous recombination deficiency, or primary platinum resistance. This once-a-day oral combination was a convenient option.

Trial registration number: NCT04217798.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the use and outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma receiving definitive chemoradiation.

Methods: The National Cancer Database was accessed, and patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2-IVA disease who underwent definitive chemoradiation were selected. Patients who received radio-sensitizing single agent chemotherapy and those who received adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy were identified. Overall survival was evaluated following generation of Kaplan-Meier curves while a Cox model was constructed to control for confounders.

Results: A total of 9895 patients were identified; 1003 (10.1%) received multi-agent adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were less likely to receive brachytherapy (60.9% vs 68.4%, p<0.001). Rate of adjuvant chemotherapy was higher among patients with stage IVA (18.1%) and stage III (11.9%) disease compared with those with stage II (8.4%) and stage IB2 (7.2%) disease (p<0.001). After controlling for confounders, administration of adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.20). Following stratification by disease stage, there was no survival benefit of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those who did not; stage IB (p=0.002; 5 year overall survival 59.2% vs 74.9% favoring chemoradiation alone), stage II (p=0.41; 5 year overall survival 63.8% vs 67.6%, respectively), stage III (p=0.52; 5 year overall survival 48% vs 47.8%, respectively), or stage IVA disease (p=0.27; 5 year overall survival 29.5% vs 34.3%, respectively).

Conclusions: In the US, approximately 1 in 10 patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma who underwent definitive chemoradiation also received adjuvant chemotherapy that was not associated with improvement in overall survival.

Objective: Treatment of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas relies on surgery and chemotherapy, potentially followed by bevacizumab and/or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) is a pragmatic indicator of tumor primary chemosensitivity. Although it is well established that BRCA mutations are associated with platinum sensitivity, the relationship between BRCA status and KELIM score has yet to be elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the interactions between BRCA and KELIM, and their respective prognostic values.

Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 743 patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas included in a French nationwide registry (NCT03275298) treated with neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery. We analyzed the interactions between BRCA and KELIM, and their impacts on progression-free survival and overall survival.

Results: BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) patients had higher standardized KELIM than BRCA-wild type (BRCAwt) tumors (median 1.16 vs 1.06, respectively; p=0.001). The prognostic value of the KELIM score was independent of BRCA in multivariate analyses. KELIM score and BRCA could be combined to define three prognostic groups: (1) an unfavorable prognostic group with both BRCAwt and unfavorable KELIM (median progression-free survival 12.0 months); (2) an intermediate prognostic group with either BRCAm and unfavorable KELIM, or BRCAwt and favorable KELIM (median progression-free survival of 16.0 and 18.8 months, respectively; HR 0.64 compared with the unfavorable group, p<0.001); and (3) a favorable prognostic group with both BRCAm and favorable KELIM (median progression-free survival 28.8 months; HR 0.37 compared with the unfavorable group, p<0.001).

Conclusions: The KELIM score provides complementary prognostic information with respect to BRCA, and discriminates different prognoses within BRCAm or BRCAwt patients. Patients with both BRCAwt/unfavorable KELIM have a poor prognosis, underscoring the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies.