Towards personalized treatment for high risk endometrial cancer

This thesis focuses on treatment outcomes of high risk endometrial cancer and corresponding patients’ and clinicians’ preferences regarding adjuvant treatment decisions; molecular studies on the etiology of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) in intermediate and high risk endometrial cancer; and the combination of immunotherapy and PARP inhibition for the treatment of recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer.The overall aims of this thesis were:• To evaluate health-related quality of life up to 5 years after chemoradiotherapy compared with pelvic radiotherapy alone in the adjuvant treatment of high risk endometrial cancer in the PORTEC-3 trial;• To investigate the preferences of patients and clinicians regarding the benefit-risk trade-off of the addition of chemotherapy to adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy;• To investigate the prevalence and prognosis of Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer among MMRd endometrial cancers;• To evaluate the role of combined checkpoint inhibition and PARP inhibition in women with metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer in terms of progression-free survival and toxicity in the DOMEC trial.LUMC / Geneeskund

Radiation therapy techniques and treatment-related toxicity in the PORTEC-3 trial: comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Purpose: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer.Methods and materials: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of = .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 ("not at all" and "a little") versus 3 to 4 ("quite a bit" and "very much") were compared between the techniques.Results: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade =3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade >= 2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade >= 2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P = 3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade >= 2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cramps were observed after IMRT compared to 3DCRT. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

PARP and PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition in recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer

The prognosis of recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer is poor, with five-year survival of only 10-20 %. First-line therapy consists of either platinum-based chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. No standard subsequent-line therapy has been identified. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the knowledge on underlying molecular biology of endometrial cancer and potential targets for therapy have been identified. Targeted therapies as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and immunotherapy as PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors have the potential to be effective against specific subtypes of endometrial cancer. Preclinical studies have shown that combining these agents may result in a synergistic effect. In this review, we focus on the molecular basis of checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy as PARP inhibition in endometrial cancer and summarize available clinical data, and ongoing and planned clinical trials that investigate these agents as mono- or combination therapies in endometrial cancer and where relevant, other gynecological cancers

Patients' and clinicians' preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making

Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Radiation therapy techniques have developed from 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), with better sparing of the surrounding normal tissues. The current analysis aimed to investigate whether IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, resulted in fewer adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported symptoms in the randomized PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer.Methods and materials: Data on AEs and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) of the PORTEC-3 trial were available for analysis. Physician-reported AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. QoL was assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30, CX24, and OV28 questionnaires. Data were compared between 3DCRT and IMRT. A P value of = .01 was considered statistically significant due to the risk of multiple testing. For QoL, combined scores 1 to 2 ("not at all" and "a little") versus 3 to 4 ("quite a bit" and "very much") were compared between the techniques.Results: Of 658 evaluable patients, 559 received 3DCRT and 99 IMRT. Median follow-up was 74.6 months. During treatment no significant differences were observed, with a trend for more grade =3 AEs, mostly hematologic and gastrointestinal, after 3DCRT (37.7% vs 26.3%, P = .03). During follow-up, 15.4% (vs 4%) had grade >= 2 diarrhea, and 26.1% (vs 13.1%) had grade >= 2 hematologic AEs after 3DCRT (vs IMRT) (both P = 3 AEs during treatment and significantly lower rates of grade >= 2 diarrhea and hematologic AEs during follow-up. Trends toward fewer patient-reported bowel urgency and abdominal cramps were observed after IMRT compared to 3DCRT. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc

Prevalence and Prognosis of Lynch Syndrome and Sporadic Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Endometrial Cancer

Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

Long-Term Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life After Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy or Radiation Therapy Alone for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer in the Randomized PORTEC-3 Trial

Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio