Search

Objective: The PORTEC-4a trial investigates molecular-integrated risk profile guided adjuvant treatment for endometrial cancer. The quality assurance programme included a dummy run for vaginal brachytherapy prior to site activation, and annual quality assurance to verify protocol adherence. Aims of this study were to evaluate vaginal brachytherapy quality and protocol adherence., Methods: For the dummy run, institutes were invited to create a brachytherapy plan on a provided CT-scan with the applicator in situ. For annual quality assurance, institutes provided data of one randomly selected brachytherapy case. A brachytherapy panel reviewed and scored the brachytherapy plans according to a checklist., Results: At the dummy run, 15 out of 21 (71.4%) institutes needed adjustments of delineation or planning. After adjustments, the mean dose at the vaginal apex (protocol: 100%; 7 Gy) decreased from 100.7% to 99.9% and range and standard deviation (SD) narrowed from 83.6-135.1 to 96.4-101.4 and 8.8 to 1.1, respectively. At annual quality assurance, 22 out of 27 (81.5%) cases had no or minor and 5 out of 27 (18.5%) major deviations. Most deviations were related to delineation, mean dose at the vaginal apex (98.0%, 74.7-114.2, SD 7.6) or reference volume length., Conclusions: Most feedback during the brachytherapy quality assurance procedure of the PORTEC-4a trial was related to delineation, dose at the vaginal apex and the reference volume length. Annual quality assurance is essential to promote protocol compliance, ensuring high quality vaginal brachytherapy in all participating institutes., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-4a trial is a randomized trial for women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer (EC), comparing individualized adjuvant treatment based on a molecular-integrated risk profile to standard adjuvant treatment; vaginal brachytherapy. To evaluate patient acceptability and pathology logistics of determining the risk profile, a pilot phase was included in the study., Methods: PORTEC-4a is ongoing and the first 50 patients enrolled were included in the pilot phase. Primary endpoints of the pilot phase were patient acceptance, evaluated by analyzing the screening logs of the participating centers, and logistical feasibility of determination of the risk profile within 2 weeks, evaluated by analyzing the pathology database., Results: In the first year, 145 eligible women were informed about the trial at 13 centers, of whom 50 (35%) provided informed consent. Patient accrual ranged from 0 to 57% per center. Most common reasons for not participating were: not willing to participate in any trial (43.2%) and not willing to risk receiving no adjuvant treatment (32.6%). Analysis of the pathology database showed an average time between randomization and determination of the molecular-integrated risk profile of 10.2 days (1-23 days). In 5 of the 32 patients (15.6%), pathology review took >2 weeks., Conclusions: The PORTEC-4a trial design was proven feasible with a satisfactory patient acceptance rate and an optimized workflow of the determination of the molecular-integrated risk profile. PORTEC-4a is the first randomized trial to investigate use of a molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant treatment in EC., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: PORTEC-2 was a randomised trial for women with high-intermediate risk (HIR) endometrial cancer, comparing pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with vaginal brachytherapy (VBT). We evaluated long-term outcomes combined with the results of pathology review and molecular analysis., Methods: 427 women with HIR endometrial cancer were randomised between 2002-2006 to VBT or EBRT. Primary endpoint was vaginal recurrence (VR). Pathology review was done in 97.4%, combined with molecular analysis., Results: Median follow-up was 116 months; 10-year VR was 3.4% versus 2.4% for VBT vs. EBRT (p = 0.55). Ten-year pelvic recurrence (PR) was more frequent in the VBT group (6.3% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.004), mostly combined with distant metastases (DM). Ten-year isolated PR was 2.5% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.10, and DM 10.4 vs. 8.9% (p = 0.45). Overall survival for VBT vs. EBRT was 69.5% vs. 67.6% at 10 years (p = 0.72). L1CAM and p53-mutant expression and substantial lymph-vascular space invasion were risk factors for PR and DM. EBRT reduced PR in cases with these risk factors., Conclusion: Long-term results of the PORTEC-2 trial confirm VBT as standard adjuvant treatment for HIR endometrial cancer. Molecular risk assessment has the potential to guide adjuvant therapy. EBRT provided better pelvic control in patients with unfavourable risk factors.

Background: In the PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer (HR-EC) were randomised to receive pelvic radiotherapy (RT) with or without concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 in weeks 1 and 4 of RT, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). Pathology review was required before patient enrolment. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the role of central pathology review before randomisation., Patients and Methods: A total of 1295 cases underwent pathology review to confirm HR-EC in the Netherlands (n = 395) and the UK (n = 900), and for 1226/1295 (95%) matching review and original reports were available. In total, 329 of these patients were enrolled in the PORTEC-3 trial: 145 in the Netherlands and 184 in the UK, comprising 48% of the total PORTEC-3 cohort of 686 participants. Areas of discrepancies were evaluated, and inter-observer agreement between original and review opinion was evaluated by calculating the kappa value (κ)., Results: In the 1226 pathology reviews, 6356 selected items were evaluable for both original and review pathology. In 43% of cases at least one pathology item changed after review. For 102 patients (8%), this discrepancy led to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial, most frequently due to differences in the assessment of histological type (34%), endocervical stromal involvement (27%) and histological grade (19%). Lowest inter-observer agreement was found for histological type (κ = 0.72), lymph-vascular space invasion (κ = 0.72) and histological grade (κ = 0.70)., Conclusion: Central pathology review by expert gynaeco-pathologists changed histological type, grade or other items in 43% of women with HR-EC, leading to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial in 8%. Upfront pathology review is essential to ensure enrolment of the target trial-population, and to avoid over- or undertreatment, especially when treatment modalities with substantial toxicity are involved. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14387080, www.controlled-trials.com) and with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411138)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Mismatch repair (MMR)-deficiency analysis is increasingly recommended for all endometrial cancers, as it identifies Lynch syndrome patients, and is emerging as a prognostic classifier to guide adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to define the optimal approach for MMR-deficiency testing and to clarify discrepancies between microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis and immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of MMR protein expression., Patients and Methods: Six hundred ninety- six endometrial cancers were analyzed for MSI (pentaplex panel) and MMR protein expression (IHC). Agreement between methodologies was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, dinucleotide microsatellite markers and somatic MMR and POLE exonuclease domain (EDM) gene variants (using next-generation/Sanger sequencing) were analyzed in discordant cases., Results: MSI was found in 180 patients. Complete loss of expression of one or more MMR proteins was observed in 196 cases. A PMS2- and MSH6-antibody panel detected all cases with loss of MMR protein expression. The results of MSI and MMR protein expression were concordant in 655/696 cases (kappa = 0.854, P < 0.001). Ambiguous cases (n = 41, 6%) included: subclonal loss of MMR protein expression (n = 18), microsatellite stable or MSI-low cases with loss of MMR protein expression (n = 20), and MSI-low or MSI-high cases with retained MMR protein expression (n = 3). Most of these cases could be explained by MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Five of seven cases with solitary loss of PMS2 or MSH6 protein expression carried somatic gene variants. Two MSI-high cases with retained MMR protein expression carried a POLE-EDM variant., Conclusion: MSI and IHC analysis are highly concordant in endometrial cancer. This holds true for cases with subclonal loss of MMR protein expression. Discordant MMR-proficient/MSI-high cases (<1%), may be explained by POLE-EDM variants., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) expression has been implicated as risk factor for disease recurrence in endometrial cancer (EC), most likely due to its role in promoting tumour cell motility. We tested the performance of L1CAM expression in predicting the risk of recurrence in the randomised post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma (PORTEC)-1 and -2 trials., Methods: In the PORTEC trials, stage I EC patients were randomised to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus no additional treatment (PORTEC-1, n=714), or to EBRT versus vaginal brachytherapy (PORTEC-2, n=427). Tumour samples of 865 (75.8%) patients were available for L1CAM expression analysis by immunohistochemistry. An established scoring system for EC was used, with >10% L1CAM staining defined as positive., Results: Positive L1CAM expression was significantly correlated with risk of distant recurrence, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 5.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-8.7) but not with vaginal relapse, while a trend for pelvic nodal relapse was found. Tumours with the highest expression levels (>50% positive) had the strongest risk of distant recurrence (HR 5.3, CI 2.7-10.4). In multivariate Cox analysis with the risk factors age, depth of invasion, grade, lympho-vascular space invasion (LVSI) and treatment, L1CAM expression remained an independent prognostic factor for distant recurrence (HR 3.5, CI 1.92-6.30) and overall survival (HR 2.1, CI 1.41-2.98)., Conclusion: L1CAM expression is a strong independent predictor for distant recurrence and overall survival in stage I endometrial cancer. These results warrant prospective validation of L1CAM as marker for selecting patients who could benefit from more extensive diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) in high-intermediate-risk endometrial cancer (EC) provides a significant reduction in the risk of local cancer recurrence, but without survival benefit and with increased mucosal atrophy. Five-year local control is estimated to be similar for VBT and a watchful waiting policy (WWP), in which patients receive VBT combined with external radiation in case of a recurrence. Our aim was to assess treatment preferences of EC patients and clinicians regarding VBT and WWP, and to evaluate their preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision making., Methods: Interviews were held with 95 treated EC patients. The treatment trade-off method was used to assess the minimally desired benefit from VBT in local control. Patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision making were assessed using a questionnaire. Seventy-seven clinicians completed a questionnaire assessing their minimally desired benefit and preferred involvement in decision making., Results: Minimally desired benefit of VBT was significantly lower for patients than for clinicians (median=0 vs 8%, P<0.001), for irradiated than for non-irradiated patients (median=0 vs 6.5%, P<0.001), and for radiation oncologists than for gynaecologists (median=4 vs 13%, P<0.001). Substantial variation existed within the groups of patients and clinicians. Participants preferred the patient and clinician to share in the decision about VBT. However, irradiated patients indicated low perceived involvement in actual treatment decision making., Conclusions: We found variations between and within patients and clinicians in minimally desired benefit from VBT. However, the recurrence risk at which patients preferred VBT was low. Our results showed that patients consider active participation in decision making essential.

Background: After surgery for intermediate-risk endometrial carcinoma, the vagina is the most frequent site of recurrence. This study established whether vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) is as effective as pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in prevention of vaginal recurrence, with fewer adverse effects and improved quality of life., Methods: In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial undertaken in 19 Dutch radiation oncology centres, 427 patients with stage I or IIA endometrial carcinoma with features of high-intermediate risk were randomly assigned by a computer-generated, biased coin minimisation procedure to pelvic EBRT (46 Gy in 23 fractions; n=214) or VBT (21 Gy high-dose rate in three fractions, or 30 Gy low-dose rate; n=213). All investigators were masked to the assignment of treatment group. The primary endpoint was vaginal recurrence. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 6% in vaginal recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat, with competing risk methods. The study is registered, number ISRCTN16228756., Findings: At median follow-up of 45 months (range 18-78), three vaginal recurrences had been diagnosed after VBT and four after EBRT. Estimated 5-year rates of vaginal recurrence were 1.8% (95% CI 0.6-5.9) for VBT and 1.6% (0.5-4.9) for EBRT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.17-3.49; p=0.74). 5-year rates of locoregional relapse (vaginal or pelvic recurrence, or both) were 5.1% (2.8-9.6) for VBT and 2.1% (0.8-5.8) for EBRT (HR 2.08, 0.71-6.09; p=0.17). 1.5% (0.5-4.5) versus 0.5% (0.1-3.4) of patients presented with isolated pelvic recurrence (HR 3.10, 0.32-29.9; p=0.30), and rates of distant metastases were similar (8.3% [5.1-13.4] vs 5.7% [3.3-9.9]; HR 1.32, 0.63-2.74; p=0.46). We recorded no differences in overall (84.8% [95% CI 79.3-90.3] vs 79.6% [71.2-88.0]; HR 1.17, 0.69-1.98; p=0.57) or disease-free survival (82.7% [76.9-88.6] vs 78.1% [69.7-86.5]; HR 1.09, 0.66-1.78; p=0.74). Rates of acute grade 1-2 gastrointestinal toxicity were significantly lower in the VBT group than in the EBRT group at completion of radiotherapy (12.6% [27/215] vs 53.8% [112/208])., Interpretation: VBT is effective in ensuring vaginal control, with fewer gastrointestinal toxic effects than with EBRT. VBT should be the adjuvant treatment of choice for patients with endometrial carcinoma of high-intermediate risk., Funding: Dutch Cancer Society., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The first joint European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) consensus conference on endometrial cancer was held on 11-13 December 2014 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of endometrial cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared three clinically relevant questions about endometrial cancer relating to the following four areas: prevention and screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment and advanced and recurrent disease. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. Results of this consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this article. All participants have approved this final article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]