Search

Background: At the time of AtTEnd trial design, standard treatment for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer included carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. This trial assessed whether combining atezolizumab with chemotherapy might improve outcomes in this population., Methods: AtTEnd was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 89 hospitals in 11 countries across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older, and had advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma or carcinosarcoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and received no previous systemic chemotherapy for recurrence. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using an interactive web response system (block size of six) to either atezolizumab 1200 mg or placebo given intravenously with chemotherapy (carboplatin at area under the curve of 5 or 6 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days) for 6-8 cycles, then continued until progression. Stratification factors were country, histological subtype, advanced or recurrent status, and mismatch repair (MMR) status. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The hierarchically tested co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (in patients with MMR-deficient [dMMR] tumours, and in the overall population) and overall survival (in the overall population). Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who gave their full consent to participation in the study and data processing. Safety was assessed in all patients included in the intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study treatment. Here, we report the primary progression-free survival and the interim overall survival results. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03603184., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2018, and Jan 7, 2022, 551 patients were randomly assigned to atezolizumab (n=362) or placebo (n=189). Two patients in the atezolizumab group were excluded from all analyses due to lack of consent. Median follow-up was 28·3 months (IQR 21·2-37·6). 81 (23%) patients in the atezolizumab group and 44 (23%) patients in the placebo group had dMMR disease by central assessment. In the dMMR population, median progression-free survival was not estimable (95% CI 12·4 months-not estimable [NE]) in the atezolizumab group and 6·9 months (6·3-10·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·23-0·57; p=0·0005). In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 10·1 months (95% CI 9·5-12·3) in the atezolizumab group and 8·9 months (8·1-9·6) in the placebo group (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·61-0·91; p=0·022). Median overall survival was 38·7 months (95% CI 30·6-NE) in the atezolizumab group and 30·2 months (25·0-37·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·07; log-rank p=0·048). The p value for the interim analysis of overall survival did not cross the stopping boundary; therefore, the trial will continue until the required number of events are recorded. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (97 [27%] of 356 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 51 [28%] of 185 in the placebo group) and anaemia (49 [14%] vs 24 [13%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 46 (13%) patients in the atezolizumab group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (pneumonia in one patient in each group)., Interpretation: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy increased progression-free survival in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma, particularly in those with dMMR carcinomas, suggesting the addition of atezolizumab to standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in this specific subgroup., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EB, FG, ER, and SU report grants from Roche to their institution to support the conduct of the study. NC reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pieris, Pfizer, Roche, and Novocure; and grants or research support from GSK and AstraZeneca. KH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Eisai, MSD/Merck, Taiho, and Takeda; and grants or research support from MSD/Merck, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo. EH reports personal fees from GSK and Clovis. FM reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD/Merck, GSK, Clovis, Gilead, Myriad Genetics, Seagen, and Stemline Menarini; grants or research support from Roche; and participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Immutep, Amgen, and Palleos Healthcare. CM reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, ImmunoGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novocure, BioNTtech, Eisai, and GSK. LF-M reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai, and Pharma&. YCL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, and grants or research support from BeiGene. EP reports personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca. BP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, and Pharma&. CZ reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, QuintilesIMS, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD/Merck, GSK, and Gilead; and grants or research support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, Clovis, Gilead, Seagen, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD/Merck. KT reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, MSD/Merck, Nippon Kayaku, Eisai, and Sanofi; and grants or research support from Chugai Pharma. AF reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, and MSD/Merck. MP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD/Merck. MPBG reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD/Merck, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Pharma&, and Kyowa Kirin; and a leadership role for Geico. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: In the absence of clear evidence from randomized trials, the intensity of follow-up regimens after surgical treatment of endometrial cancer is highly variable in clinical practice. To reduce this uncertainty, we conducted a randomized trial to test whether an intensive (INT) versus a minimalist (MIN) follow-up regimen improves overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing operation for endometrial cancer., Methods: The TOTEM study was a large, pragmatic randomized trial, conducted in 42 hospitals (in Italy and France) including patients surgically treated for endometrial cancer, in complete clinical remission, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IV. After stratification by center and risk of relapse (low or high), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to INT or MIN hospital-based follow-up regimens. The study was powered to demonstrate an absolute improvement of 5% of the 5-year OS with the INT regimen., Results: In total, 1,871 patients were randomly assigned between November 2008 and July 2018, and 1,847 patients (98.7%) were available for the final analysis (60% low risk). After a median follow-up of 69 months, the 5-year OS was 90.6% in the INT and 91.9% in the MIN arms (hazard ratio, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.50, P = .380). No differences in OS were found in subgroup analyses considering age, cancer treatment, risk of relapse, and degree of adherence of the center to the scheduled follow-up. The probability of detecting a relapse was slightly higher in the INT arm (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.48; P = .194)., Conclusion: An INT follow-up in endometrial cancer-treated patients does not improve OS, even in high-risk patients. According to available evidence, there is no need to routinely add vaginal cytology, laboratory, or imaging investigations to the MIN regimens used in this trial.

Objective: To evaluate the outcome of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) treatment with CO2 laser vaporization in terms of local recurrence and progression to vaginal carcinoma. Additionally, the authors investigated the predictive factors for first recurrence., Materials and Methods: The medical records of all patients treated for VaIN with CO2 laser vaporization at Sant'Anna Hospital in Turin (1995-2012), were retrospectively reviewed. A univariate logistic model was applied to evaluate selected clinical features as predictive factors for recurrence. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was then carried out including significant risk factors after univariate analysis (p < 0.05)., Results: The analysis included 285 out of 302 patients. Seventy-one (25%) women relapsed; of these 24 VaIN 1 (22%), 37 VaIN 2 (27%), and ten VaIN 3 (26%). The median time to the first recurrence was 5.2 months (1.4-127.8) for VaIN 1, 6.6 months (1-85.2) for VaIN 2, and 3.6 months (1.2-62) for VaIN 3. Sixty-one out of 71 patients were retreated with CO2 laser vaporization. At the last follow-up visit, 273 (96%) women were free from VaIN. No patients progressed to vaginal carcinoma. The multivariate model showed a higher risk of VaIN recurrence in the case of previous hysterectomy (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.7-6.3, p < 0.001) and concomitant H-SIL on the Pap smear (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.1, p = 0.008)., Conclusion: CO2 laser vaporization is an effective low impact treatment for VaIN. Despite this, VaIN recur, in particular in cases of previous hysterectomy and concomitant H-SIL on the Pap smear. An intensive follow-up is proposed for women with a high risk of VaIN relapse.

Objectives: To compare survival data in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients submitted to secondary cytoreduction (SCR) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal intraoperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) (Cases) and a similar group of women not experiencing HIPEC (Controls)., Methods: Case-control study, matching 30 Cases with 37 Controls, with at least 24 months of follow-up., Results: Groups were comparable for all characteristics, except for a higher proportion of patients with single-nodule relapses is the Controls (19 vs. 6; p=0.011). Median follow-up time was 46 months in the Cases and 36 months in the Controls. Twenty patients (66.6%) experienced secondary recurrence in the Cases and 37 women (100%) in the Controls (p=0.001). Moreover, 7 (23.3%) and 23 (62.2%) patients died of disease in the Cases and Controls respectively (p=0.003). The duration of secondary response was 26 months in the Cases and 15 months in the Controls (p=0.004)., Conclusions: The combination of SCR and HIPEC seems to improve survival rate in patients suffering from platinum-sensitive EOC recurrence with respect to no-HIPEC treatments. This result further supports the need of a randomized trial., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims and Background: Although guidelines recommend minimalist follow-up, there is wide variability in gynecological oncology practice. The aims of this study were to describe between-center differences in the follow-up of endometrial, ovarian, and uterine cervical cancer; to identify the determinants of test prescription; to estimate the related costs; and to assess the weight of center habits and patient characteristics as sources of unexplained variability., Methods and Study Design: The medical records of patients treated between August 2004 and July 2005 for gynecological malignancies and followed up for the detection of recurrent disease were retrospectively collected from 29 centers of the Piedmont Oncology Network. Multivariate multilevel analyses were performed to study the determinants of test prescription and costs., Results: Analyses were performed on 351 patients (median follow-up: 578 days). The unexplained variability in computed tomography prescriptions (26%), ultrasound prescriptions (17%), and total cost of follow-up (15%) can be attributed to center habits, independenty of the clinical characteristics of the patients., Conclusions: Much of the unexplained variability in the follow-up for gynecological malignancies is attributable to different habits of centers belonging to a cancer network. These results prompted us to design a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare minimalist versus intensive follow-up programs in endometrial cancer.

Objectives: The aim of this review was to analyze the role of follow-up in patients treated for endometrial cancer and to provide some compelling issues that may contribute to improve daily practice while waiting for evidence-based guidelines., Methods/materials: A literature search has been conducted in MEDLINE database using key words "endometrial neoplasms" and "follow up"., Results: Endometrial cancer represents the most common gynecologic malignancy after breast cancer. The overall recurrence rate is 13% and correlates with prognostic factors of the primary tumor. The anatomic sites of endometrial cancer relapse are mostly equivalently distributed between local (pelvic) and distant (abdominal and chest). Most endometrial cancer recurrences are symptomatic, even if vaginal vault relapses represent a particular setting of a more frequently asymptomatic disease. Most of endometrial cancer recurrences occur within 3 years since diagnosis of primary tumor. Long-term surveillance programs are mainly addressed to the early detection of recurrence, the rationale of follow-up being that an earlier diagnosis of relapse correlates with lower morbidity and mortality rates. Adjunctive objectives of routine follow-up are identification of treatment complications and detection of possible second tumors associated with endometrial cancer., Conclusions: No rationale (examination sensitivity/sensibility, cost-effectiveness, or patient's survival benefit) is available today for any particular follow-up protocol; follow-up procedures should probably be tailored according to different prognostic factors; only physical examination, including pelvic-rectal examination, showed some utility in detecting recurrence. In this uncertain setting, follow-up interval should be defined with the consideration of the patient's will.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate how much clinical surveillance performed by follow-up scheduled appointments may correctly identify asymptomatic recurrences and describe the pattern of relapse detected by procedures., Methods: The records of 327 consecutive women with recurrent cervical cancer treated from 1980 to 2005 were retrospectively collected in 8 Italian Institutions. Primary disease and recurrence data were picked up: diagnosis, type of treatment, FIGO stage, tumour grade, histology, clinical lesion size, number of localizations and site of relapse, presence of symptoms and primary method of detection, the type of treatment of recurrence and follow-up data, such as appointment date, clinical status and procedure performed. A multivariate analysis was carried out using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. Survival differences were evaluated by the log-rank test., Results: Sixty-seven out of 327 patients (20.5%) had a local recurrence on vaginal vault, 120 (36.7%) in central pelvis, 31 (9.5%) in pelvic wall, 16 cases (4.9%) in lymph nodes. Seventy-nine patients (24.2%) showed a distant relapse while 14 (4.3%) developed both a distant and local relapse. Among patients with distant relapses 39 (49.4%) had lung metastasis, 41 (51.9%) an hepatic recurrence, 4 (5.1%) a bone relapse. Among distant sites 32 out of 79 patients (40.5%) had single relapse and 46 (58.2%) had multiple localizations. The site of relapse influenced survival since patients with vaginal vault recurrences lived significantly longer than patients with recurrences in other sites. Ninety-seven (29.7%) patients were symptomatic and anticipated the scheduled visit, 66 (20.2%) reported their symptoms during the follow-up visit and 164 (50.1%) were asymptomatic and the diagnostic path was introduced by a planned visit or exam. Between asymptomatic patients the first procedure was clinical visit for 85 patients out of 164 patients (51.8%), imaging for 60 patients (36.6%), both clinical visit and imaging for 14 (8.5%) and cytology for 5 (3%, Pap smear test). The median OS of symptomatic patients was 37 months versus 109 months of asymptomatic patients (Log rank, p=0.00001). The median survival since recurrence was 9 months for symptomatic patients and median was not reached for asymptomatic patients (p<0.0001). The median disease-free interval was 24 months for asymptomatic patients vs. 36 months for symptomatic patients (p=0.03)., Conclusions: Our study helps demonstrate the great need of prospective cost-effectiveness studies which are lacking at the present time.