Search

Purpose: The Groningen International Study on Sentinel nodes in Vulvar cancer (GROINSS-V)-II investigated whether inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative to inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy (IFL) in vulvar cancer patients with a metastatic sentinel node (SN)., Methods: GROINSS-V-II was a prospective multicenter phase-II single-arm treatment trial, including patients with early-stage vulvar cancer (diameter < 4 cm) without signs of lymph node involvement at imaging, who had primary surgical treatment (local excision with SN biopsy). Where the SN was involved (metastasis of any size), inguinofemoral radiotherapy was given (50 Gy). The primary end point was isolated groin recurrence rate at 24 months. Stopping rules were defined for the occurrence of groin recurrences., Results: From December 2005 until October 2016, 1,535 eligible patients were registered. The SN showed metastasis in 322 (21.0%) patients. In June 2010, with 91 SN-positive patients included, the stopping rule was activated because the isolated groin recurrence rate in this group went above our predefined threshold. Among 10 patients with an isolated groin recurrence, nine had SN metastases > 2 mm and/or extracapsular spread. The protocol was amended so that those with SN macrometastases (> 2 mm) underwent standard of care (IFL), whereas patients with SN micrometastases (≤ 2 mm) continued to receive inguinofemoral radiotherapy. Among 160 patients with SN micrometastases, 126 received inguinofemoral radiotherapy, with an ipsilateral isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years of 1.6%. Among 162 patients with SN macrometastases, the isolated groin recurrence rate at 2 years was 22% in those who underwent radiotherapy, and 6.9% in those who underwent IFL ( P = .011). Treatment-related morbidity after radiotherapy was less frequent compared with IFL., Conclusion: Inguinofemoral radiotherapy is a safe alternative for IFL in patients with SN micrometastases, with minimal morbidity. For patients with SN macrometastasis, radiotherapy with a total dose of 50 Gy resulted in more isolated groin recurrences compared with IFL., Competing Interests: Brian SlomovitzConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, Agenus, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Myriad Genetics, Merck, Eisai Ignace VergoteConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Carrick Therapeutics, Deciphera, Elevar Therapeutics, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, OCTIMET Oncology NV, Oncoinvent, Sotio, Verastem, Zentalis, Roche, MillenniumResearch Funding: Roche, Genmab, Amgen, OncoinventTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Amgen, MSD/Merck Mats BrännströmStock and Other Ownership Interests: EUGIN Sweden Martin WidschwendterStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sola Diagnostics, BreOva HealthPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents relevant for risk prediction or diagnosis of women's cancers Paul A. DiSilvestroConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AgenusResearch Funding: Janssen Oncology, Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie Robert MannelConsulting or Advisory Role: Tesaro Dorry BollResearch Funding: AstraZeneca David CibulaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Sotio, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline Diane ProvencherConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, AbbVie Ingo B. RunnebaumConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie (I), Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncgnostics, Tesaro Preben KjølhedeResearch Funding: Leo Pharma AB Katharina E. KieserHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Nicola M. SpirtosResearch Funding: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Clovis Oncology, Seattle GeneticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No. PCT/US 2019/19465 Cannabis Based Therapeutic and Method of Use Application No, US Patent 0024098766 Compounds Cannabidiol and Flavanones 63/047550 (July 1, 2020) 63/055458 (July 23, 2020) David M. O'MalleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Tesaro, Novocure, AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, OncoQuest, Immunogen, GOG Foundation, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Agenus, Marker Therapeutics, Eisai, Genelux, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Tarveda Therapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Myriad Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sorrento Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Novartis, Seagen, BBI Healthcare, Arquer Diagnostics, Toray Medical, Takeda, InxMed, Celsion, Roche Diagnostics MSAResearch Funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Regeneron, Immunogen, Janssen Research & Development, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Ajinomoto, Cerulean Pharma, PharmaMar, Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agenus, Tesaro, TRACON Pharma, Genmab, Seattle Genetics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Merck, AbbVie/Stemcentrx, AbbVie, Mersana, Eisai, BBI Healthcare, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology Mario M. LeitaoHonoraria: Intuitive SurgicalConsulting or Advisory Role: Intuitive Surgical, Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, TakedaResearch Funding: KCITravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Intuitive Surgical Melissa A. GellerResearch Funding: Tesaro, Genentech, FATE Therapeutics, Morphotek, Bayer Karl TamussinoOther Relationship: Medtronic Daniel H. TobiasConsulting or Advisory Role: Ethicon Jayanthi S. LeaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Brynhildur EyjolfsdottirOther Relationship: Intuitive Surgical Krishnansu S. TewariHonoraria: Tesaro, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Tesaro, Clovis OncologyResearch Funding: AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, Morphotek, Merck, RegeneronTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech Ranjit ManchandaHonoraria: AstraZeneca Linda Van LeConsulting or Advisory Role: EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Advarum, Neurotech, Iveric, Gemini Therapeutics, NaegisResearch Funding: GOG Partners Trial Bradley J. MonkLeadership: US OncologyHonoraria: AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, ChemoID, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Geistlich Pharma, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Oncosec, Perthera, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Senti Biosciences, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Vavotar Life Sciences, Vascular Biogenics, Vigeo Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, Starton Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, Novocure, Gradalis, Karyopharm TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Asymmetric Therapeutics, Boston Biomedical, ChemoCare, ChemoID, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Geistlich Pharma, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, GOG Foundation, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Laekna Health Care, Merck, Mersana, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Nucana, Oncomed, Oncoquest, Oncosec, Perthera, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Senti Biosciences, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro/GSK, Vavotar Life Sciences, Vascular Biogenics, Vigeo Therapeutics, Gradalis, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, NovocureSpeakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Tesaro/GSK, MerckResearch Funding: Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Lilly, Janssen, Array BioPharma, Tesaro, Morphotek, Pfizer, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Regeneron, Nucana Carien L. CreutzbergConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Elekta, Varian Medical SystemsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Study Question: How efficacious and safe are the current approaches to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) aimed at fertility preservation (FP) in women with breast cancer (BC)?, Summary Answer: In women with BC undergoing COS aiming at egg/embryo cryopreservation, letrozole-based protocols and those randomly started were equally effective compared with conventional COS, and the overall survival was similar between the women that proceeded to FP and those who did not., What Is Known Already: Cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is an established method for FP in women with BC. Recent improvements to COS protocols include concomitant use of letrozole, random-cycle start day of stimulation and the use of GnRHa for the egg maturation trigger. To date, limited sample size of the available studies has not allowed investigation of differences in the efficacy of the different approaches to COS for FP in this patient population., Study Design, Size, Duration: A prospective multicenter study with national coverage including 610 women with BC counseled between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2017 at six Swedish FP regional programs., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: After counseling, 401 women elected to undergo COS. Treatments differed in the use or not of concomitant letrozole, a conventional or random-cycle day COS initiation and the use of hCG versus GnRHa trigger for oocyte maturation. Numbers of cryopreserved oocytes and embryos were defined as primary outcome. Pregnancy attempts, reproductive outcomes and long-term survival, investigated by the linking of individuals of the cohort to the total population register of the Swedish Tax Agency (up to 25 November 2018), were evaluated., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Using letrozole or not resulted in similar numbers of oocytes and embryos cryopreserved (meanoocytes = 9.7 versus 10 and meanembryos 4.0 versus 5.3, respectively), similar to COS with random versus conventional start (meanoocytes 9.0 versus 10.6 and meanembryos 4.8 versus 4.8). In COS with letrozole, a GnRHa trigger was associated with a higher number of oocytes retrieved (P < 0.05) and embryos cryopreserved (P < 0.005), compared with conventional hCG trigger. Of 99 women who returned to fertility clinics after cancer treatment, 32 proceeded to thawing of oocytes or embryos and 10 of them had live births. The all-cause survival between the women that underwent COS and those who did not was similar and did not differ between the two groups., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Data on tumor characteristics and estrogen receptor (ER) status were not known for all women at the time of FP counseling and planning of COS, thus protocols with letrozole have been used for both estrogen-sensitive and non-estrogen-sensitive BC. For the same reason, subsequent adjustment for ERs in the BC or tumor characteristics as potential confounders were not performed as these parameters were not available and did not influence the provision of FP through COS., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results of our study support the premise that recently introduced potential improvements to COS protocols for FP in women with BC are efficacious and safe., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was supported by research grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Stockholm County Council, the Percy Falk Stiftelsen, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder, The Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Karolinska Institutet to K.A.R.W. J.B. reports grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Merck, outside the submitted work, and payment from UpToDate to Asklepios Medicine HB for a chapter on BC prediction and prognostication. All the other authors have no competing interests to report., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Is there a reduced live-birth rate (LBR) after IVF/ICSI treatment in women with a previous unilateral oophorectomy (UO)?, Summary Answer: A significantly reduced LBR after IVF/ICSI was found in women with previous UO when compared with women with intact ovaries in this large multicentre cohort, both crudely and after adjustment for age, BMI, fertility centre and calendar period and regardless of whether the analysis was based on transfer of embryos in the fresh cycle only or on cumulative results including transfers using frozen-thawed embryos., What Is Known Already: Similar pregnancy rates after IVF/ICSI have been previously reported in case-control studies and small cohort studies of women with previous UO versus women without ovarian surgery. In all previous studies multiple embryos were transferred. No study has previously evaluated LBR in a large cohort of women with a history of UO., Study Design, Size, Duration: This research was a multicentre cohort study, including five reproductive medicine centres in Sweden: Carl von Linné Clinic (A), Karolinska University Hospital (B), Uppsala University Hospital (C), Linköping University Hospital (D) and Örebro University Hospital (E). The women underwent IVF/ICSI between January 1999 and November 2015. Single embryo transfer (SET) was performed in approximately 70% of all treatments, without any significant difference between UO exposed women versus controls (68% versus 71%), respectively (P = 0.32), and a maximum of two embryos were transferred in the remaining cases. The dataset included all consecutive treatments and fresh and frozen-thawed cycles., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The exposed cohort included 154 women with UO who underwent 301 IVF/ICSI cycles and the unexposed control cohort consisted of 22 693 women who underwent 41 545 IVF/ICSI cycles. Overall, at the five centres (A-E), the exposed cohort underwent 151, 34, 35, 41 and 40 treatments, respectively, and they were compared with controls of the same centre (18 484, 8371, 5575, 4670 and 4445, respectively). The primary outcome was LBR, which was analysed per started cycle, per ovum pick-up (OPU) and per embryo transfer (ET). Secondary outcomes included the numbers of oocytes retrieved and supernumerary embryos obtained, the Ovarian Sensitivity Index (OSI), embryo quality scores and cumulative pregnancy rates. We used a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model for statistical analysis in order to account for repeated treatments., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The exposed (UO) and control women's groups were comparable with regard to age and performance of IVF or ICSI. Significant differences in LBR, both crude and age-adjusted, were observed between the UO and control groups: LBR per started cycle (18.6% versus 25.4%, P = 0.007 and P = 0.014, respectively), LBR/OPU (20.3% versus 27.1%, P = 0.012 and P = 0.015, respectively) and LBR/ET (23.0% versus 29.7%, P = 0.022 and P = 0.025, respectively). The differences in LBR remained significant after inclusion of both fresh and frozen-thawed transfers (both crude and age-adjusted data): LBR/OPU (26.1% versus 34.4%, P = 0.005 and P = 0.006, respectively) and LBR/ET (28.3% versus 37.1%, P = 0.006 and P = 0.006, respectively). The crude cancellation rate was significantly higher among women with a history of UO than in controls (18.9% versus 14.5%, P = 0.034 and age-adjusted, P = 0.178). In a multivariate GEE model, the cumulative odds ratios for LBR (fresh and frozen-thawed)/OPU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, P = 0.016) and LBR (fresh and frozen-thawed)/ET (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.92, P = 0.012) were approximately 30% lower in the group of women with UO when adjusted for age, BMI, reproductive centre, calendar period and number of embryos transferred when appropriate. The OSI was significantly lower in women with a history of UO than in controls (3.6 versus 6.0) and the difference was significant for both crude and age-adjusted data (P = <0.001 for both). Significantly fewer oocytes were retrieved in treatments of women with UO than in controls (7.2 versus 9.9, P = <0.001, respectively)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Due to the nature of the topic, this is a retrospective analysis, with all its inherent limitations. Furthermore, the cause for UO was not possible to obtain in all cases. A diagnosis of endometriosis was also more common in the UO group, i.e. a selection bias in terms of poorer patient characteristics in the UO group cannot be completely ruled out. However, adjustment for all known confounders did not affect the general results., Wider Implications of the Findings: To date, this is the largest cohort investigated and the first study indicating an association of achieving reduced live birth after IVF/ICSI in women with previous UO. These findings are novel and contradict the earlier notion that IVF/ICSI treatment is not affected, or is only marginally affected by previous UO., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): None., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Introduction: The aim of this study is to report the current status of ovarian tissue cryopreservation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries., Material and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 14 Nordic academic reproductive centers with established fertility preservation programs. It covered fertility preservation cases performed up to December 2014, standard procedures for ovarian tissue cryopreservation and oocyte cryopreservation and reproductive outcomes following ovarian tissue transplantation., Results: Among the Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway practice ovarian tissue cryopreservation as a clinical treatment (822 and 164 cases, respectively) and their programs are centralized. In Sweden (457 cases), ovarian tissue cryopreservation is practiced at five of six centers and in Finland at all five centers (145 cases). Nearly all considered ovarian tissue cryopreservation to be experimental. In Iceland, embryo cryopreservation is the only option for fertility preservation. Most centers use slow-freezing methods for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Most patients selected for ovarian tissue cryopreservation were newly diagnosed with cancer and the tissue was predominantly retrieved laparoscopically by unilateral oophorectomy. Only minor complications were reported. In total, 46 women have undergone ovarian tissue transplantation aiming at recovering fertility, 17 healthy children have been born and several additional pregnancies are currently ongoing. Whenever patients' clinical condition is permissive, oocyte cryopreservation after hormonal stimulation is preferred for fertility preservation. Between 2012 and 2014, a smaller proportion of females have undergone fertility preservation in the Nordic centers, in comparison to males (1:3)., Conclusions: Overall, ovarian tissue cryopreservation was reported to be safe. Slow freezing methods are still preferred. Promising results of recovery of fertility have been reported in Nordic countries that have initiated ovarian tissue transplantation procedures., (© 2016 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate lifestyle habits and lifestyle adjustments among subfertile women trying to conceive., Materials and Methods: Women (n = 747) were recruited consecutively at their first visit to fertility clinics in mid-Sweden. Participants completed a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using logistic regression, t tests, and chi-square tests., Results: The response rate was 62% (n = 466). Mean duration of infertility was 1.9 years. During this time 13.2% used tobacco daily, 13.6% drank more than three cups of coffee per day, and 11.6% consumed more than two glasses of alcohol weekly. In this sample, 23.9% of the women were overweight (body mass index, BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2)), and 12.5% were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)). Obese women exercised more and changed to healthy diets more frequently than normal-weight women (odds ratio 7.43; 95% confidence interval 3.7-14.9). Six out of ten women (n = 266) took folic acid when they started trying to conceive, but 11% stopped taking folic acid after some time. Taking folic acid was associated with a higher level of education (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Among subfertile women, one-third were overweight or obese, and some had other lifestyle factors with known adverse effects on fertility such as use of tobacco. Overweight and obese women adjusted their habits but did not reduce their body mass index. Women of fertile age would benefit from preconception counseling, and the treatment of infertility should routinely offer interventions for lifestyle changes.

The purpose of this study was to assess the response rate, toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a series of advanced stage ovarian carcinoma patients treated with a first-line weekly docetaxel and three weekly carboplatin regimens. All eligible patients were treated with intravenous docetaxel (30 mg/m2) on Days 1, 8 and 15, and carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) on Day 1; Q21 days for at least 6 cycles. Neurological tests, questionnaires, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and OV28 were used for quality-of-life assessments. One hundred and six patients received at least one cycle of primary chemotherapy (median 6.0; range, 1-9) and they were evaluable for toxicity assessment. Eighty-five patients had evaluable disease and received at least 3 courses of chemotherapy and were evaluable for clinical response rate. The overall response rate was 78.8% (95% CI 70.1-87.5%) and the biochemical response was 92.8% (95% CI 87.2-98.4%). The median PFS was 12.0 months and the median OS was 35.3 months. Thirty-six patients (34.0%) experienced grades 3 and 4 neutropenia, which resulted in the removal of 3 patients. Six patients (5.7%) experienced grades 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia. No patients experienced grade 3-4 sensory neuropathy. Epiphora, nail changes and fatigue were frequently recorded non-hematological side effects. The tolerable hematological toxicity (no need for colony-stimulating factors) and the low rate of severe neurotoxicity (only grade 1-2) and response rates in line with the standard 3-week paclitaxel-carboplatin regimen for advanced primary ovarian carcinoma after suboptimal cytoreductive surgery make this regimen an interesting alternative in selected patients.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the response rate, toxicity, progression-free survival, and overall survival in a series of patients with advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma treated with a first-line weekly docetaxel and 3 weekly carboplatin regimen., Methods: All eligible patients were treated with intravenous docetaxel (30 mg/m) on days 1, 8, and 15, and carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) on day 1; every 21 days for at least 6 cycles., Results: One hundred six patients received at least one cycle of primary chemotherapy (median, 6.0; range, 1-9), and they were evaluable for toxicity assessment. Eighty-five patients had evaluable (measurable) disease and received at least 3 courses of chemotherapy and were evaluable for clinical response rate. The overall response rate was 78.8% (95% confidence interval, 70.1%-87.5%), and the biochemical response 92.8% (95% confidence interval, 87.2%-98.4%). The median progression-free survival was 12.0 months and the median overall survival was 35.3 months. Thirty-six patients (34.0%) experienced grades 3 and 4 neutropenia, which resulted in the removal of 3 patients. Six patients (5.7%) experienced grades 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia. No patients experienced grade 3 to grade 4 sensory neuropathy. Epiphora, nail changes, and fatigue were frequently recorded nonhematologic adverse effects., Conclusions: The tolerable hematologic toxicity (no need for colony-stimulating factors) and the low rate of neurotoxicity (only grades 1-2) and response rates in line with the standard 3-week paclitaxel-carboplatin regimen for advanced primary ovarian carcinoma after suboptimal cytoreductive surgery make this regimen an interesting alternative in selected patients.