Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of endometrial cancer

Background: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is an appropriate treatment for women with the climacteric syndrome. The estrogen component of MHT effectively alleviates climacteric symptoms but also stimulates the endometrium and thus may increase the risk of endometrial cancer (EC). Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify controlled and uncontrolled clinical trials reporting on the prevalence and/or incidence of EC among women using MHT. Results: 31 publications reporting on 21,306 women with EC diagnosed during or after MHT were identified. A significantly reduced risk of EC among continuous-combined (cc)MHT users with synthetic progestins (SPs) was demonstrated in 10/19 studies with odds ratios (ORs)/hazard ratios (HRs) between 0.24 and 0.71. Only one study documented an increased risk of EC among long-term users ($\geq$10 years), not confirmed in three other sub-group analyses of women with $\geq$6, $\geq$5, and >10 years of ccMHT use. A significantly increased risk of EC among users of sequential-combined (sc)MHT with SPs was demonstrated in 6/12 studies with ORs/HRs between 1.38 and 4.35. Number of days of progestin per month was a significant modulator of EC risk. A decreased risk of EC was seen in obese women. Two studies documented an increased risk of EC among users of cc/scMHT with micronized progesterone. A significantly increased risk of EC among estrogen-only MHT users was demonstrated in 9/12 studies with ORs/HRs between 1.45 and 4.46. The adverse effect of estrogen-only MHT was greatest among obese women. Conclusion: ccMHT with SPs reduces the risk of EC, whereas estrogen-only MHT increases the risk. scMHT with SPs and cc/scMHT with micronized progesterone increase the risk of EC depending on type of progestin, progestin dosage, and duration of MHT use

Cancer and immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment in the era of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Whether cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are at an increased risk of severe infection and mortality during the corona pandemic is a hotly debated topic that will continue to evolve. Here, we summarize and discuss current studies regarding COVID-19 and anti-cancer treatment with an emphasis on ICI. Importantly, several lines of evidence suggest that patients currently treated with ICI do not display an increased vulnerability to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data regarding morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 in cancer patients receiving ICI are less clear and often conflicting. Although mostly based on experimental data, it is possible that ICI can promote the exacerbated immune response associated with adverse outcome in COVID-19 patients. On the other hand, mounting evidence suggests that ICI might even be useful in the treatment of viral infections by preventing or ameliorating T cell exhaustion. In this context, the right timing of treatment might be essential. Nevertheless, some cancer patients treated with ICI experience autoimmune-related side effects that require the use of immunosuppressive therapies, which in turn may promote a severe course of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Although there is clear evidence that withholding ICI will have more serious consequences, further studies are urgently needed in to better evaluate the effects of ICI in patients with COVID-19 and the use of ICI during the corona pandemic in general

Radiogenic angiosarcoma of the breast

$\bf {Background:}$ Radiogenic angiosarcoma of the breast (RASB) is a rare late sequela of local irradiation of the breast or chest wall after breast cancer. The prognosis of women with RASB is poor and there is no standardized therapy for this type of malignancy. $\textbf {Case presentation:}$ We present the case of a 54 year old woman with RASB (poorly differentiated angiosarcoma of the left breast; pT1, pNX, M0, L0, V0) and a history of invasive-ductal cancer of the left breast (pT1b, G2, pN0, ER positive, PR positive, HER-2/neu negative) treated in July 2012 with breast-conserving surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 cycles of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, adjuvant irradiation of the left breast with 50 Gray, and adjuvant endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor. In August 2016, a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was performed to remove a tumor of the left ovary, which was diagnosed as breast cancer recurrence. At the same time, a small, purple skin lesion of 1.2 cm in diameter was noted in the inner upper quadrant of the right breast. RASB was diagnosed by punch biopsy and the tumor was excised with clear margins. Imaging studies showed no evidence of further metastases. A systemic chemotherapy with 6 cycles of liposomal doxorubicin was initiated. Five months later, a local recurrence of RASB was diagnosed and mastectomy was performed. Six months later, the patient is alive with no evidence of disease. Three hundred seven cases of RASB were identified. The pooled incidence rate of RASB was 1/3754 women. The most common treatment of RASB was mastectomy in 83% of cases. Adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy were rarely used with 6 and 4%, respectively, whereas in case of recurrence, chemotherapy was the mainstay of treatment, used in 58% of cases. Radiotherapy and repeated surgery were also common with 30 and 33% of cases, respectively. Overall, the prognosis of women with RASB was poor and the recurrence-free survival was short with a mean of 15.9 months. Mean overall survival was 27.4 months. $\bf {Conclusion:}$ RASB is a rare late complication of breast irradiation. The prognosis of women with RASB is poor. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for localized disease while systemic chemotherapy and re-irradiation are appropriate for women with disseminated or recurrent RASB

Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

$\textbf {Background:}$ Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) is a rare variant of cervical cancer. The prognosis of women with NECC is poor and there is no standardized therapy for this type of malignancy based on controlled trials. $\textbf {Methods:}$ We performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials describing the management and outcome of women with NECC. $\textbf {Results:}$ Three thousand five hundred thirty-eight cases of NECC in 112 studies were identified. The pooled proportion of NECC among women with cervical cancer was 2303/163470 (1.41%). Small cell NECC, large cell NECC, and other histological subtypes were identified in 80.4, 12.0, and 7.6% of cases, respectively. Early and late stage disease presentation were evenly distributed with 1463 (50.6%) and 1428 (49.4%) cases, respectively. Tumors expressed synaptophysin (424/538 cases; 79%), neuron-specific enolase (196/285 cases; 69%), chromogranin (323/486 cases; 66%), and CD56 (162/267; 61%). The most common primary treatment was radical surgery combined with chemotherapy either as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, described in 42/48 studies. Radiotherapy-based primary treatment schemes in the form of radiotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or radiotherapy with concomitant or followed by chemotherapy were also commonly used (15/48 studies). There is no standard chemotherapy regimen for NECC, but cisplatin/carboplatin and etoposide (EP) was the most commonly used treatment scheme (24/40 studies). Overall, the prognosis of women with NECC was poor with a mean recurrence-free survival of 16 months and a mean overall survival of 40 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents were reported as being active in three case reports. $\textbf {Conclusion:}$ NECC is a rare variant of cervical cancer with a poor prognosis. Multimodality treatment with radical surgery and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide with or without radiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for early stage disease while chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide or topotecan, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is appropriate for women with locally advanced or recurrent NECC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be beneficial, but controlled evidence for their efficacy is lacking