Field-cycling imaging in ovarian cancer : a novel technology

Peer reviewedPostprin

Outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, prospective CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer study

Background: The CovidSurg-Cancer Consortium aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 in surgical patients and services for solid cancers at the start of the pandemic. The CovidSurg-Gynecologic Oncology Cancer subgroup was particularly concerned about the magnitude of adverse outcomes caused by the disrupted surgical gynecologic cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are currently unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in care and short-term outcomes of surgical patients with gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a delay in surgical cancer care, especially in patients who required more extensive surgery, and such delay had an impact on cancer outcomes. Study Design: This was a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with gynecologic cancers who were initially planned for nonpalliative surgery, were recruited from the date of first COVID-19-related admission in each participating center for 3 months. The follow-up period was 3 months from the time of the multidisciplinary tumor board decision to operate. The primary outcome of this analysis is the incidence of pandemic-related changes in care. The secondary outcomes included 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity and a composite outcome of unresectable disease or disease progression, emergency surgery, and death. Results: We included 3973 patients (3784 operated and 189 nonoperated) from 227 centers in 52 countries and 7 world regions who were initially planned to have cancer surgery. In 20.7% (823/3973) of the patients, the standard of care was adjusted. A significant delay (>8 weeks) was observed in 11.2% (424/3784) of patients, particularly in those with ovarian cancer (213/1355; 15.7%; P<.0001). This delay was associated with a composite of adverse outcomes, including disease progression and death (95/424; 22.4% vs 601/3360; 17.9%; P=.024) compared with those who had operations within 8 weeks of tumor board decisions. One in 13 (189/2430; 7.9%) did not receive their planned operations, in whom 1 in 20 (5/189; 2.7%) died and 1 in 5 (34/189; 18%) experienced disease progression or death within 3 months of multidisciplinary team board decision for surgery. Only 22 of the 3778 surgical patients (0.6%) acquired perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infections; they had a longer postoperative stay (median 8.5 vs 4 days; P<.0001), higher predefined surgical morbidity (14/22; 63.6% vs 717/3762; 19.1%; P<.0001) and mortality (4/22; 18.2% vs 26/3762; 0.7%; P<.0001) rates than the uninfected cohort. Conclusion: One in 5 surgical patients with gynecologic cancer worldwide experienced management modifications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant adverse outcomes were observed in those with delayed or cancelled operations, and coordinated mitigating strategies are urgently needed

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Predicting postoperative pain by using preoperative pain threshold in response to electrical stimulus in women undergoing gynaecological cancer surgery - Single-arm, prospective, observational study

Background and Aims: Individual variability leading to different pain experiences makes pain prediction challenging. This study aimed to evaluate whether preoperative electrical pain threshold testing is predictive of postoperative pain. Methods: Following ethics committee approval and registration of the trial, 40 consenting patients undergoing open laparotomy (interval debulking surgery) for ovarian cancer were included in the study. Electrical stimulus (maximum of 256 μA) was used preoperatively to determine the current perception threshold (CPT) and pain equivalent current (PEC). A numerical rating scale (NRS; 0–10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) was used to assess pain. All patients received intravenous paracetamol in accordance to body weight, diclofenac (1 mg/kg, maximum 50 mg), and tramadol (1 mg/kg, maximum 50 mg) eight hourly for 24 hours. The preoperative PEC was compared with worst pain score (PS) at movement at the end of 24 hours. PEC was also compared with average PS at rest, at movement, and with opioid requirement (24 hours). Results: The median values of CPT and PEC were 12.51 (45 [10.1–14.6]) μA and 94.75 (174 [48.8–94.7]) μA, respectively. A moderate correlation was observed between PEC and worst PS (P = 0.01, r = −0.402), with patients having PEC less than 60 μA being associated with moderate-to-severe PS. There was no correlation between PEC and average PS at rest (P = 0.16, r = 0.225), at movement (P = 0.46, r = 0.119), and the postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 hours (P = 0.50, r = −0.110). Conclusion: There is a moderate association between preoperative pain threshold in response to electrical stimulus and worst PS in the postoperative period following interval debulking surgery for ovarian cancer

Comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone with ondansetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in postchemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia: A randomised, double-blind, active controlled study

Background and Aims: Patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery after chemotherapy and requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) are at high-risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone combination for these patients for prevention of PONV. Methods: This study included 2 groups and 150 patients. At the time of wound closure, patients in group A received ondansetron 8 mg intravenous (IV) + dexamethasone 4 mg IV and group B received palonosetron 0.075 mg IV + dexamethasone 4 mg IV. Postoperatively for 48 hours, group A patients received ondansetron 4 mg 8 hourly IV, group B patients received normal saline 8 hourly IV in 2 cc syringe. The primary objective was the overall incidence of PONV. Independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were used and multivariate regression analysis was done. Results: Vomiting was significantly higher in group A (37.3%) as compared with group B (21.3%) at 0–48 hours (P = 0.031). Significantly more patients in Group A had nausea as compared with group B at 90–120 minutes (30.66% vs 18.66%, P = 0.043) and 6–24 hours (32.0% vs 22.66%, P = 0.029). PCA opioid usage in microgram was significantly higher in group A at 0–24 hours (690.53 ± 332.57 vs 576.85 ± 250.79, P = 0.024) and 0–48 hours (1126.10 ± 512.18 vs 952.13 ± 353.85, P = 0.030). Conclusion: Palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective than ondasetron with dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in post-chemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries receiving opioid-based patient controlled analgesia

Contribution of demographic, psychological and disease-related factors to quality of life in women with high-grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of demographic, psychological and disease-related factors on Quality of life (QoL) outcomes in women with high-grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN2-3). To obtain qualitative data on the effect of disease and treatment in these women and their partners. To assess the participants' perception of their risk of developing of vulval cancer and its relation to QoL outcomes. METHODS: A questionnaire was constructed using existing instruments to measure the effect of demographic, psychological and disease-related factors on QoL outcomes. Free text space was provided for qualitative data. The questionnaire was mailed to women attending two specialist VIN clinics. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty women were invited for the study. Eighty-two responded (54.6%) of which forty-four (53.6%) were sexually active. Demographic factors (age and or living situation) had a significant effect on emotional health and body image. Psychological factors (anxiety and depression) had a significant effect on all aspects of QoL. Disease-related factors did not have a measurable effect on QoL outcomes, although the qualitative data revealed that various aspects of VIN had affected the lives of these women and their partners. There was a significant positive association between a perceived risk of developing vulval cancer with worsening general and emotional health. CONCLUSION: Psychological co-morbidity and various demographic factors should be considered while managing women with VIN. Accurate information regarding the development of vulval cancer should be given. The findings of this preliminary study will assist the construction of VIN-specific QoL instruments in the future

COVID-19 and gynecological cancer: a review of the published guidelines

On March 11, 2020 the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a 'pandemic' by the World Health Organization. COVID-19 is associated with higher surgical morbidity and mortality. An array of guidelines on the management of cancer during this pandemic have been published since the first reports of the outbreak. This narrative review brings all the relevant information from the guidelines together into one document, to support patient care. We present a detailed review of published guidelines, statements, comments from peer-reviewed journals, and nationally/internationally recognized professional bodies and societies' web pages (in English or with English translation available) between December 1, 2019 and May 27, 2020. Search terms included combinations of COVID, SARS-COV-2, guideline, gynecology, oncology, gynecological, cancer. Recommendations for surgical and oncological prioritization of gynecological cancers are discussed and summarized. The role of minimally invasive surgery, patient perspectives, medico-legal aspects, and clinical trials during the pandemic are also discussed. The consensus is that elective benign surgery should cease and cancer surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue based on prioritization. Patient and staff face-to-face interactions should be limited, and health resources used efficiently using prioritization strategies. This review and the guidelines on which it is based support the difficult decisions currently facing us in gynecological cancer. It is a balancing act: limited resources and a hostile environment pitted against the time-sensitive nature of cancer treatment. We can only hope to do our best for our patients with the resources available to us

Surgical route and pathological risk factors in early cervical cancer - Node Zero (SURPEC-N0)

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage I cervical cancer (≤ 4cms, lymph node-negative) undergoing open radical hysterectomy (ORH) vs. minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH).Methods: All patients undergoing radical hysterectomy between January 2012-December 2018 from the largest tertiary referral cancer centre were included. A 1:1 propensity matching was done based on four independent prognostic factors to compare DFS and OS with the route of surgery. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine patients were included during the study period. The median age of the cohort was 50 years. The median follow-up of patients was 47 months. Following 1:1 propensity matching, a total of 174 patients were analysed for DFS and OS in ORH (n = 87) and MIRH (n = 87) groups. Protective measure was used in two-thirds of the patients during MIRH. Twenty-nine patients (16.7%) had recurrences. For the matched cohort (n = 174), the DFS at 36 and 60 months was 84.8% (78.1%-89.6%) and 81% (73.4%-86.6%) respectively and the OS was 96.5% (91.7%-98.5%) and 95.6% (90.3%-98%) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS or OS between ORH and MIRH. Conclusion: The present study showed no difference in oncological outcomes in MIRH compared to ORH. Retrospective audits on patient characteristics such as screening/vaccination history along with surgical technique/load and matching for crucial risk factors should be factored in future studies to eliminate the possible methodological errors

Human papillomavirus genotype testing combined with cytology as a 'test of cure' post treatment: the importance of a persistent viral infection

Background Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been evaluated as a test of cure in patients following treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). Studies show that women who are HPV and cytology negative post treatment can be safely returned to routine recall. The management strategy for HPV positive women requires confirmation. Objective To evaluate the clinical utility of the PapilloCheck® genotyping assay for predicting disease recurrence in a test of cure setting. Study design Ninety-eight women (19–52 years) treated for CIN2+ by large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) were evaluated with samples taken before and 6 months after treatment for HPV testing. Cytology and histology were available from recruitment until 24 months post treatment. Results Recurrent disease was evident in 4% of patients with 2 cases low-grade and 2 cases of high-grade disease. In women with no disease recurrence, 40% (95% CI 30.42–51.05%) were high risk (HR) HPV negative post LLETZ. Both cases with high-grade disease had persistent HPV16 infection. Genotyping before and after treatment revealed 83% (95% CI 75.74–88.78%) of total viral infections were cleared and 17% (95% CI 11.22–24.26) viral infections persisted. Post treatment, combined cytology and HPV test results predicted CIN2+ with 100% sensitivity, 91.7% specificity, 100% NPV and 20% PPV and measuring viral persistence marginally increased specificity and PPV. Conclusion Post treatment, cytology combined with a single HR HPV test has high sensitivity and specificity for predicting disease recurrence. HPV genotyping before and after LLETZ identifies persistent viral infections and could help refine patient management

Phase II trial of imiquimod and HPV therapeutic vaccination in patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia.

Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a premalignant condition, which is frequently associated with type HPV16 infection, and multifocal disease has high rates of surgical treatment failure. Methods: We report a phase II clinical trial of the topical immunomodulator, imiquimod, for 8 weeks, followed by 3 doses (weeks 10, 14 and 18) of therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination (TA-CIN, fusion protein HPV16 E6E7L2) in 19 women with VIN grades 2 and 3. Histology and HPV testing of biopsies were performed at weeks 0, 10, 20 and 52. Intralesional infiltration of T-cell subsets and lymphocyte proliferation for HPV systemic immune responses were also assessed. Results: Lesion response (complete regression of VIN on histology) was observed in 32% (6 out of 19) of women at week 10, increasing to 58% (11 out of 19) at week 20 and 63% (12 out of 19) at week 52. At this time, 36% (5 out of 14) of lesions showed HPV16 clearance and 79% (15 out of 19) of women were symptom free. At week 20, after treatment with imiquimod and vaccination, there was significantly increased local infiltration of CD8 and CD4 T cells in lesion responders; in contrast, non-responders (persistent VIN by histology) showed an increased density of T regulatory cells. After vaccination, only lesion responders had significantly increased lympho-proliferation to the HPV vaccine antigens. Conclusion: The therapeutic effect of treatment depends on the differential immune response of responders and non-responders with affect locally and systemically