Search

Adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel is recommended for all high-grade ovarian or Fallopian tube cancers, stage FIGO I-IIA (grade A). After a complete first surgery, it is recommended to deliver 6 cycles of intravenous (grade A) or to propose intraperitoneal (grade B) chemotherapy, to be discussed with patient, according to the benefit/risk ratio. After a complete interval surgery for a FIGO III stage, the hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be proposed in the same conditions of the OV-HIPEC trial (grade B). In case of tumor residue after surgery or FIGO stage IV, chemotherapy associated with bevacizumab is recommended (grade A). For BRCA mutated patient, Olaparib is recommended (grade B).

Faced to an undetermined ovarian mass on ultrasound, an MRI is recommended and the ROMA score (combining CA125 and HE4) can be proposed (grade A). In case of suspected early stage ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, omentectomy (at least infracolonic), appendectomy, multiple peritoneal biopsies, peritoneal cytology (grade C) and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy are recommended (grade B) for all histological types, except for the expansive mucinous subtype where lymphadenectomy may be omitted (grade C). Minimally invasive surgery is recommended for early stage ovarian cancer, if there is no risk of tumor rupture (grade B). Laparoscopic exploration for multiple biopsies (grade A) and to evaluate carcinomatosis score (at least using the Fagotti score) (grade C) are recommended to estimate the possibility of a complete surgery (i.e. no macroscopic residue). Complete medial laparotomy surgery is recommended for advanced cancers (grade B). It is recommended in advanced cancers to perform para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in case of clinical or radiological suspicion of metastatic lymph node (grade B). In the absence of clinical or radiological lymphadenopathy and in case of complete peritoneal surgery during an initial surgery for advanced cancer, it is possible not to perform a lymphadenectomy because it does not modify the medical treatment and the overall survival (grade B). Primary surgery is recommended when no tumor residue is possible (grade B).

The management of endometrial carcinoma is constantly evolving. The SFOG and the CNGOF decided to jointly update the previous French recommendations (Institut national du cancer 2011) and to adapt to the French practice the 2015 recommendations elaborated at the time of joint European consensus conference with the participation of the three concerned European societies (ESGO, ESTRO, ESMO).A strict methodology was used. A steering committee was put together. A systematic review of the literature since 2011 has been carried out. A first draft of the recommendations has been elaborated, with emphasis on high level of evidence. An external review by users representing all the concerned discipines and all kinds of practice was completed. Three hundred and four comments were sent by 54 reviewers.The management of endometrial carcinoma requires a precise preoperative workup. A provisional estimate of the final stage is provided. This estimation impact the level of surgical staging. Surgery should use a minimal invasive approach. The final pathology is the key of the decision concerning adjuvant therapy, which involves surveillance, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or chemotherapy.The management algorithms allow a fast, state of the art based, answer to the clinical questions raised by the management of endometrial cancer. They must be used only in the setting of a multidisciplinary team at all stages of the management.

The management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma is changing, marked by innovative therapies. However, their respective use and place in the therapeutic strategy continue to be debated by healthcare professionals.The French national cancer institute has led a national clinical practice guideline project since 2008. It has carried out a review of these modalities of treatment and established recommendations.The clinical practice guidelines development process is based on systematic literature review and critical appraisal by experts. The recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines are reviewed by independent practitioners in cancer care delivery.This article presents the results of bibliographic search, the conclusions of the literature and the recommendations concerning locoregional treatments of brain metastases for patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

Recent years have seen the emergence of new molecules for the treatment of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with significant benefits in terms of survival and the opening of new therapeutic perspectives. In addition, many techniques are currently being developed for locoregional treatment of metastatic sites. Management of metastatic melanoma is thus fast-changing and is marked by innovative therapeutic approaches. However, the availability of these new treatments has prompted debate among healthcare professionals concerning their use and their place in therapeutic strategy.Since 2008, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) has been leading a project to define and diffuse national clinical practice guidelines. It has performed a review of these treatment methods, which it aims to circulate, and it is seeking to develop recommendations in order to allow nationwide implementation of innovative approaches while promoting good use thereof.The clinical practice guidelines development process is based on systematic literature review and critical appraisal by experts within a multidisciplinary working group, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. The recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines are reviewed by independent practitioners in cancer care delivery.This article presents the national recommendations for first- and second-line systemic treatment and for locoregional treatment of metastatic sites in patients presenting metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in children consulting at the pediatric emergency unit during a 6-month period.The regional pharmacovigilance center (CRPV) and the department of clinical pharmacology prospectively and systematically recorded all potential ADRs among patients younger than 18 years of age in the pediatric emergency unit reported at the daily staff meetings. All cases were then screened and validated by the CRPV. For validated cases, preventability, seriousness, and off-label use were evaluated.During the study period, from 1 March to 1 September 2005, 90 children presented potential adverse drug events. ADRs were confirmed in 43 patients, 19 females and 24 males. Thirty-four patients (79%) were under the age of 5. According to the European definition, 14 patients (33%) had serious ADRs. One anaphylactic shock after amoxicillin injection; antimalarial prophylaxis misuse leading to convulsive status epilepticus, convulsion, and coma after hepatitis B and MMR vaccines were deemed life-threatening. Three ADRs were considered avoidable. Antibiotics and vaccines were the most common possible cause of ADRs (76%). Skin reactions (n=27), fever (n=8), and gastric disorders (n=5) were the most common clinical manifestations.Because ADRs were reported by clinicians on a voluntary basis, serious ADRs were probably reported more systematically. Compared to a similar period without active monitoring, active drug monitoring of ADRs doubled the number of confirmed cases 43 vs 17, p0.001. Close collaboration between the pharmacovigilance center, pharmacologists, and clinicians is necessary and seems feasible for improving the monitoring of ADRs in children.