ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023*

Funding Information: Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague. Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 ) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, ESGO, ESTRO, ESP.In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer - Update 2023∗

In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023

Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESPIn 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe

název v anglickém jazyce není uveden

Ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie silnou jehlou je bezpečná, rychlá a spolehlivá metoda k histologické verifikaci pokročilého nebo recidivujícího abdominopelvického nádoru. Výkon lze provést ambulantně, bez nutnosti celkové anestézie, při minimálním dyskomfortu pro pacienta ve srovnání s laparoskopií nebo laparotomií. Riziko komplikací je nízké a hlavní výhodou je získání adekvátního histologického vzorku s možností následného imunohistochemického vyšetření, které je nezbytným předpokladem pro volbu optimální onkologické léčby

název v anglickém jazyce není uveden

Ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie silnou jehlou je bezpečná, rychlá a spolehlivá metoda k histologické verifikaci pokročilého nebo recidivujícího abdominopelvického nádoru. Výkon lze provést ambulantně, bez nutnosti celkové anestézie, při minimálním dyskomfortu pro pacienta ve srovnání s laparoskopií nebo laparotomií. Riziko komplikací je nízké a hlavní výhodou je získání adekvátního histologického vzorku s možností následného imunohistochemického vyšetření, které je nezbytným předpokladem pro volbu optimální onkologické léčby.Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics First Faculty of Medicine and General University HospitalGynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v PrazeFirst Faculty of Medicine1. lékařská fakult

Are we better off using multiple endometriosis classifications in imaging and surgery than settle for one universal less than perfect protocol? Review of staging systems in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and surgery

There are multiple classifications in imaging and surgery of endometriosis and in this article, we offer a review of the main evaluation systems. The International Deep Endometriosis Analysis group consensus is the leading document for ultrasound assessment, while magnetic resonance imaging is guided by the European Society for Urogenital Radiology recommendations on technical protocol. In surgery, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification is the oldest system, ideally combined with newer classifications, such as Enzian or Endometriosis Fertility Index. Recently, The World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project introduced detailed proforma for clinical and intraoperative findings. There is still no universal consensus, so the initial emphasis should be on the uniform reporting of the disease extent until research clarifies more the correlations between extent, symptoms and progression in order to develop a reliable staging system.Impact Statement What is already known on this subject? There have been several reviews of surgical classifications, comparing their scope and practical use, while in the imaging the attempts for literature review has been scarce. What do the results of this study add? This is the first up to date review offering detailed analysis of the main classification systems across the three main areas involved in endometriosis care - ultrasound, MRI and surgery. The mutual awareness of the radiological classifications for surgeons and vice versa is crucial in an efficient multidisciplinary communication and patient care. On these comparisons we were able to demonstrate the lack of consensus in description of the extent of the disease and even further lack of prognostic features (with the exemption of one surgical system). What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Future attempts of scientific societies should focus on defining uniform nomenclature for extent description. In the second step the staging classification should encompass prognostic value (risk of disease and symptoms recurrence)

Age-related differences in the sonographic characteristics of endometriomas

Study Question Do sonographic characteristics of ovarian endometriomas vary with age in premenopausal women? Summary Answer With increasing age, multilocular cysts and cysts with papillations and other solid components become more common whereas ground glass echogenicity of cyst fluid becomes less common. What is Known Already Expectant or medical management of women with endometriomas is now accepted. Therefore, the accuracy of non-invasive diagnosis of these cysts is pivotal. A clinically relevant question is whether the sonographic characteristics of ovarian endometriomas are the same irrespective of the age of the woman. Study Design, Size, Duration This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) database. The database contains clinical and ultrasound information collected pre-operatively between 1999 and 2012 from 5914 patients with adnexal masses in 24 ultrasound centres in 10 countries. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods There were 1005 histologically confirmed endometriomas in adult premenopausal patients found in the database and these were used in our analysis. The following ultrasound variables (defined using IOTA terminology) were used to describe the ultrasound appearance of the endometriomas: tender mass at ultrasound, largest diameter of lesion, tumour type (unilocular, unilocular-solid, multilocular, multilocular-solid, solid), echogenicity of cyst content, presence of papillations, number of papillations, height (mm) of largest papillation, presence and proportion of solid tissue and number of cyst locules, as well as vascularity in papillations and colour content of the tumour scan (colour score) on colour or power Doppler ultrasounds. Results are reported as median difference or odds ratio (OR) per 10 years increase in age. Main Results and the Role of Chance Maximal lesion diameter did not vary substantially with age (+1.3 mm difference per 10 years increase in age, 95% confidence interval (CI)-1.4 to 4.0). Tender mass at scan was less common in the older the woman (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89), as were unilocular cysts relative to multilocular cysts (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85) and to lesions with solid components (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.77), and ground glass echogenicity relative to homogeneous low-level echogenicity (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94) and other types of echogenicity of cyst contents (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.81). Papillations were more common the older the woman (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.21), but their height and vascularization showed no clear relation to age. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION It is a limitation that we have little clinical information on the women included, e.g. previous surgery or medical treatment for endometriosis. It is important to emphasize that we do not know the age of the endometrioma itself and that our study is not longitudinal and so does not describe changes in endometriomas over time. The differences in the ultrasound appearance of endometriomas between women of different ages might be explained by previous surgery or medical treatment and might not be an effect of age per se. Wider Implications of the Findings Awareness of physicians that the ultrasound appearance of endometriomas differs between women of different ages may facilitate a correct diagnosis of endometrioma. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported in part by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (project code CPR-24750). B.V.C., A.C. and D.T. are supported by the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders, Belgium (FWO). The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest

Age-related differences in the sonographic characteristics of endometriomas

Do sonographic characteristics of ovarian endometriomas vary with age in premenopausal women?status: publishe