Search

Objective Uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS) is a rare but aggressive cancer. In early-stage disease data guiding treatment is sparse. The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings from the 2019 NRG oncology group summer symposium meeting as well as a review of the current literature, with a particular focus on molecular targets, ongoing clinical trials, and treatment of early and advanced/recurrent disease. Methods A combination of expert presentations and an extensive literature search was undertaken to summarize the literature in this review. MEDLINE was queried for peer-reviewed publications on UCS. This search was not limited by year or study design, but was limited to English language publications. ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for ongoing trials in UCS. Results UCS is a rare cancer that is biphasic, with the carcinomatous component driving its aggressive nature. Level 3 evidence regarding early stage disease is lacking, but retrospective data suggests adjuvant therapy is warranted. The recent results of GOG 261 have contributed valuable information towards treatment strategy, including use of paclitaxel and carboplatin for UCS. Clinical trials are ongoing to investigate new targeted agents in UCS. Conclusion Ongoing endometrial cancer clinical trials now include UCS patients. In combination with advances in molecular profiling, this will provide patients with UCS improved therapeutic options. Until that time, surgical resection and traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy remains standard of care.

Fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer should, in principle, follow identical algorithms to that in patients without future reproductive plans. In recent years, a trend towards non-radical procedures such as conization or simple trachelectomy has become apparent in medical literature, because of their associations with better pregnancy outcomes. However, the published reports included small numbers of patients and heterogenous treatment strategies to ascertain safety of such approaches.Our aims were to collect multi-institutional data regarding the oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment in cervical cancer patients and to identify prognostic risk factors, including the influence of the radicality of individual cervical procedures.Patients aged 18-40 years with FIGO 2018 stage IA1 + lymphovascular space invasion or ≥IA2 cervical cancer who underwent any type of fertility-sparing procedure were eligible for this retrospective observational study, regardless of their histotype, tumor grade, and history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Associations between disease- and treatment-related characteristics with the risk of recurrence were analyzed.A total of 733 patients from 44 institutions across 13 countries were included in this study. Almost half of the patients had stage IB1 cervical cancer (49%), and two-thirds were nulliparous (66%). After a median follow-up of 72 months, 51 patients (7%) experienced recurrence of whom 19 (2.6%) died due to the disease. The most common sites of recurrence were the cervix (53%) and pelvic nodes (22%). The risk of recurrence was three times higher in patients with tumors2 cm in size than in patients with smaller tumors, irrespective of the treatment radicality (19.4% vs. 5.7%; hazard ratio 2.982, 95% CI 1.383-6.431, P = .005). The recurrence risk in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size did not differ between patients who underwent radical trachelectomy or non-radical (conization and simple trachelectomy) cervical procedures (P = .957), regardless of tumor size subcategory (1 or 1-2 cm) or lymphovascular space invasion.Fertility-sparing non-radical cervical procedures were not associated with increased risk of recurrence compared with radical procedures in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size in this large, multicenter retrospective study. The risk of recurrence after any type of fertility-sparing procedure was significantly greater in patients with tumors2 cm in size.

Objective Uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS) is a rare but aggressive cancer. In early-stage disease data guiding treatment is sparse. The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings from the 2019 NRG oncology group summer symposium meeting as well as a review of the current literature, with a particular focus on molecular targets, ongoing clinical trials, and treatment of early and advanced/recurrent disease. Methods A combination of expert presentations and an extensive literature search was undertaken to summarize the literature in this review. MEDLINE was queried for peer-reviewed publications on UCS. This search was not limited by year or study design, but was limited to English language publications. ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for ongoing trials in UCS. Results UCS is a rare cancer that is biphasic, with the carcinomatous component driving its aggressive nature. Level 3 evidence regarding early stage disease is lacking, but retrospective data suggests adjuvant therapy is warranted. The recent results of GOG 261 have contributed valuable information towards treatment strategy, including use of paclitaxel and carboplatin for UCS. Clinical trials are ongoing to investigate new targeted agents in UCS. Conclusion Ongoing endometrial cancer clinical trials now include UCS patients. In combination with advances in molecular profiling, this will provide patients with UCS improved therapeutic options. Until that time, surgical resection and traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy remains standard of care.

To evaluate the feasibility and oncological safety of ovarian preservation in early stage endometrial adenocarcinoma (EC) patients aged 40 and below.A total of 11 institutions from eight countries participated in the study. 169 of 5898 patients aged ≤40 years were eligible for the study. Patients with EC treated between March 2007 and January 2019 were retrospectively assessed.The median duration of follow-up after EC diagnosis was 59 months (4-187). Among 169 participants, ovarian preservation surgery (OPS) was performed in 54 (31.9%), and BSO was performed in 115 (68.1%) patients. Although patients younger than 30 years of age were more likely to have OPS than patients aged 30 to 40 years (20.4% vs. 9.6%, P = 0.021), there was no significant difference by the mean age. There were no other relevant baseline differences between OPS and BSO groups. The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in either the overall survival (P = 0.955) or recurrence-free survival (P = 0.068) among patients who underwent OPS, and BSO.OPS appears to be safe without having any adverse impact on survival in women aged ≤40 years with FIGO Stage I EC.