Cervical cancer detection by DNA methylation analysis in urine

Urine samples provide a potential alternative to physician-taken or self-collected cervical samples for cervical screening. Screening by primary hrHPV testing requires additional risk assessment (so-called triage) of hrHPV-positive women. Molecular markers, such as DNA methylation, have proven most valuable for triage when applied to cervical specimens. This study was set out to compare hrHPV and DNA methylation results in paired urine and cervical scrapes, and to evaluate the feasibility of DNA methylation analysis in urine to detect cervical cancer. Urine samples (n = 41; native and sediment) and paired cervical scrapes (n = 38) from cervical cancer patients, and urine from 44 female controls, were tested for hrHPV and 6 methylation markers. Results on native urine and sediment were highly comparable. A strong agreement was found between hrHPV testing on urine and scrapes (kappa = 0.79). Also, methylation levels in urine were moderately to strongly correlated to those detected in scrapes (r = 0.508-0.717). All markers were significantly increased in urine from cervical cancer patients compared to controls and showed a good discriminatory power for cervical cancer (AUC = 0.744-0.887). Our results show a good agreement of urine-based molecular analysis with reference cervical samples, and suggest that urine-based DNA methylation testing may provide a promising strategy for cervical cancer detectio

Exploring Morphologic and Molecular Aspects of Endometrial Cancer under Progesterone Treatment in the Context of Fertility Preservation

Objective The standard treatment of early-stage (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] I) endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) is hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. An alternative approach for younger women with low-grade EEC who wish to preserve fertility may be hormonal treatment. Previous studies have suggested that progesterone may elicit its antitumor effect in EEC by interacting with the Wingless (Wnt) and/or phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt pathways. Therefore, we explored whether common activating genetic alterations in Wnt and PI3K/Akt signaling correlated with nonresponsiveness to progesterone therapy for low-grade EEC. In addition, we investigated whether benign morphology under progesterone treatment is accompanied by the absence of genetic changes. Methods We analyzed molecular alterations in the Wnt and PI3K/Akt signaling in 84 serial endometrial samples from 11 premenopausal patients with progesterone receptor-positive low-grade EEC conservatively treated with progesterone and correlated these with histological and clinical follow-up. Results There were 6 responders and 5 nonresponders to progesterone treatment. The response rate to progesterone treatment was 55%, and the relapse rate was 83%. All responders had alterations in both the Wnt and PI3K/Akt pathway before treatment. In the nonresponder group, tumors inconsistently showed alterations in none, 1, or both pathways. Normalization of the endometrium morphology under progesterone treatment is accompanied by the absence of the genetic changes found in the specimen before treatment. Conclusions We found that activating molecular alterations in either Wnt or PI3K/Akt signaling pathways did not predict resistance to progesterone treatment. It seems that morphological response goes along with disappearance of the established mutations. This exploratory study suggests that Wnt or PI3K/Akt status is unable to predict response to progesterone treatment in patients with EEC

Fertility-sparing treatment in early endometrial cancer: current state and future strategies

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the fifth most common cancer in women worldwide. Global estimates show rising incidence rates in both developed and developing countries. Most women are diagnosed postmenopausal, but 14-25% of patients are premenopausal and 5% are under 40 years of age. Established risk factors include age and hyperestrogenic status associated with nulliparity, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. Standard treatment for EC, which involves total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, has excellent survival outcomes, particularly for low-grade endometrioid tumors. However, it leads to permanent loss of fertility among women who wish to preserve their reproductive potential. With current trends of reproductive-age women delaying childbearing, rising EC incidence rates, and a growing epidemic of obesity, particularly in developed countries, research on conservative non-surgical treatment approaches remains a top priority. Fertility-sparing treatment predominantly involves the use of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, which have been shown to be feasible and safe in women with early stage EC and minimal or no myometrial invasion. However, data on the efficacy and safety of conservative management strategies are primarily based on retrospective studies. Randomized clinical trials in younger women and high-risk obese patients are currently underway. Here, we have presented a comprehensive review of the current literature on conservative, fertility-sparing approaches, defining the optimal candidates and evaluating tumor characteristics, reproductive and oncologic outcomes, and ongoing clinical trials. We have also summarized current guidelines and recommendations based on the published literature

DNA methylation testing for endometrial cancer detection in urine, cervicovaginal self-samples and cervical scrapes

Endometrial cancer incidence is rising and current diagnostics often require invasive biopsy procedures. DNA methylation marker analysis of minimally- and non-invasive sample types could provide an easy-to-apply and patient-friendly alternative to determine cancer risk. Here, we compared the performance of DNA methylation markers to detect endometrial cancer in urine, cervicovaginal self-samples and clinician-taken cervical scrapes. Paired samples were collected from 103 patients diagnosed with stage I to IV endometrial cancer. Urine and self-samples were collected at home. All samples were tested for nine DNA methylation markers using quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Methylation levels measured in endometrial cancer patients were compared to unpaired samples of 317 healthy controls. Diagnostic performances were evaluated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis, followed by leave-one-out cross-validation. Each methylation marker showed significantly higher methylation levels in all sample types of endometrial cancer patients compared to healthy controls (P <.01). Optimal three-marker combinations demonstrated excellent diagnostic performances with area under the receiver operating curve values of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98), 0.94 (0.90-0.97) and 0.97 (0.96-0.99), for endometrial cancer detection in urine, self-samples and scrapes, respectively. Sensitivities ranged from 89% to 93% at specificities of 90% to 92%. Virtually equal performances were obtained after cross-validation and excellent diagnostic performances were maintained for stage I endometrial cancer detection. Our study shows the value of methylation analysis in patient-friendly sample types for endometrial cancer detection of all stages. This approach has great potential to screen patient populations at risk for endometrial cancer

Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass

OBJECTIVES: In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment. METHODS: Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies

Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass

Objectives In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment. Methods Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress. Results A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred. Conclusions Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies

Establishment of the Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary infrastructure and biobank for fundamental and translational ovarian cancer research: Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research (AOCR)

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer has the worst overall survival rate of all gynecologic malignancies. For the majority of patients, the 5-year overall survival rate of less than 50% has hardly improved over the last decades. To improve the outcome of patients with all subtypes of ovarian cancer, large-scale fundamental and translational research is needed. To accommodate these types of ovarian cancer research, we have established a Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary infrastructure and biobank: the Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research (AOCR). The AOCR will facilitate fundamental and translational ovarian cancer research and enhance interdisciplinary, national and international collaboration. DESIGN: The AOCR biobank is a prospective ovarian cancer biobank in which biomaterials are collected, processed and stored in a uniform matter for future (genetic) scientific research. All 19 Dutch hospitals in which ovarian cancer surgery is performed participate and collaborate in the AOCR biobank. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients of 16 years and older with suspected or diagnosed ovarian, Fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer are recruited for participation. Patients who agree to participate give written informed consent for collection, storage and issue of their biomaterials for future studies. After inclusion, different blood samples are taken at various predefined time points both before and during treatment. In case of a diagnostic paracentesis or biopsy, the residual biomaterials of these procedures are stored in the biobank. During surgery, primary tumor tissue and, if applicable, tissue from metastatic sites are collected and stored. From each patient, a representative histological hematoxylin and eosin stained slide is digitalized for research purposes, including reassessment by a panel of gynecologic pathologists. Clinical and pathological data are obtained on a per-study basis from Dutch registries. Research proposals for the issue of biomaterials and data are evaluated by both the Archipelago Scientific Committee and the Steering Committee. Researchers using the biomaterials from the AOCR biobank are encouraged to enrich the biobank with data and materials resulting from their analyses and experiments. LIMITATIONS: The implementation and first four years of collection are financed by an infrastructural grant from the Dutch Cancer Society. Therefore, the main limitation is that the costs for sustaining the biobank after the funding period will have to be covered. This coverage will come from incorporation of budget for biobanking in future grant applications and from fees from external researchers and commercial parties using the biomaterials stored in the AOCR biobank. Moreover, we will apply for grants aimed at sustaining and improving research infrastructures and biobanks. CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of the Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research infrastructure and biobank, fundamental and translational research on ovarian cancer can be greatly improved. The ultimate aim of this infrastructure is that it will lead to improved diagnostics, treatment and survival of patients with ovarian cancer

Establishment of the Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary infrastructure and biobank for fundamental and translational ovarian cancer research:Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research (AOCR)

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer has the worst overall survival rate of all gynecologic malignancies. For the majority of patients, the 5-year overall survival rate of less than 50% has hardly improved over the last decades. To improve the outcome of patients with all subtypes of ovarian cancer, large-scale fundamental and translational research is needed. To accommodate these types of ovarian cancer research, we have established a Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary infrastructure and biobank: the Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research (AOCR). The AOCR will facilitate fundamental and translational ovarian cancer research and enhance interdisciplinary, national and international collaboration. DESIGN: The AOCR biobank is a prospective ovarian cancer biobank in which biomaterials are collected, processed and stored in a uniform matter for future (genetic) scientific research. All 19 Dutch hospitals in which ovarian cancer surgery is performed participate and collaborate in the AOCR biobank. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients of 16 years and older with suspected or diagnosed ovarian, Fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer are recruited for participation. Patients who agree to participate give written informed consent for collection, storage and issue of their biomaterials for future studies. After inclusion, different blood samples are taken at various predefined time points both before and during treatment. In case of a diagnostic paracentesis or biopsy, the residual biomaterials of these procedures are stored in the biobank. During surgery, primary tumor tissue and, if applicable, tissue from metastatic sites are collected and stored. From each patient, a representative histological hematoxylin and eosin stained slide is digitalized for research purposes, including reassessment by a panel of gynecologic pathologists. Clinical and pathological data are obtained on a per-study basis from Dutch registries. Research proposals for the issue of biomaterials and data are evaluated by both the Archipelago Scientific Committee and the Steering Committee. Researchers using the biomaterials from the AOCR biobank are encouraged to enrich the biobank with data and materials resulting from their analyses and experiments. LIMITATIONS: The implementation and first four years of collection are financed by an infrastructural grant from the Dutch Cancer Society. Therefore, the main limitation is that the costs for sustaining the biobank after the funding period will have to be covered. This coverage will come from incorporation of budget for biobanking in future grant applications and from fees from external researchers and commercial parties using the biomaterials stored in the AOCR biobank. Moreover, we will apply for grants aimed at sustaining and improving research infrastructures and biobanks. CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of the Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research infrastructure and biobank, fundamental and translational research on ovarian cancer can be greatly improved. The ultimate aim of this infrastructure is that it will lead to improved diagnostics, treatment and survival of patients with ovarian cancer

Establishment of the Dutch Nationwide, Interdisciplinary Infrastructure and Biobank for Fundamental and Translational Ovarian Cancer Research: Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer has the worst overall survival rate of all gynecologic malignancies. For the majority of patients, the 5-year overall survival rate of less than 50% has hardly improved over the last decades. To improve the outcome of patients with all subtypes of ovarian cancer, large-scale fundamental and translational research is needed. To accommodate these types of ovarian cancer research, we have established a Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary infrastructure and biobank: the Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research (AOCR). The AOCR will facilitate fundamental and translational ovarian cancer research and enhance interdisciplinary, national, and international collaboration.  DESIGN: The AOCR biobank is a prospective ovarian cancer biobank in which biomaterials are collected, processed, and stored in a uniform matter for future (genetic) scientific research. All 19 Dutch hospitals in which ovarian cancer surgery is performed participate and collaborate in the AOCR biobank.  PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients of 16 years and older with suspected or diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer are recruited for participation. Patients who agree to participate give written informed consent for collection, storage, and issue of their biomaterials for future studies. After inclusion, different blood samples are taken at various predefined time points both before and during treatment. In case of a diagnostic paracentesis or biopsy, the residual biomaterials of these procedures are stored in the biobank. During surgery, primary tumor tissue and, if applicable, tissue from metastatic sites are collected and stored. From each patient, a representative histological hematoxylin and eosin stained slide is digitalized for research purposes, including reassessment by a panel of gynecologic pathologists. Clinical and pathological data are obtained on a per-study basis from Dutch registries. Research proposals for the issue of biomaterials and data are evaluated by both the Archipelago Scientific Committee and the Steering Committee. Researchers using the biomaterials from the AOCR biobank are encouraged to enrich the biobank with data and materials resulting from their analyses and experiments.  LIMITATIONS: The implementation and first 4 years of collection are financed by an infrastructural grant from the Dutch Cancer Society. Therefore, the main limitation is that the costs for sustaining the biobank after the funding period will have to be covered. This coverage will come from incorporation of budget for biobanking in future grant applications and from fees from external researchers and commercial parties using the biomaterials stored in the AOCR biobank. Moreover, we will apply for grants aimed at sustaining and improving research infrastructures and biobanks.  CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of the Dutch nationwide, interdisciplinary Archipelago of Ovarian Cancer Research infrastructure and biobank, fundamental and translational research on ovarian cancer can be greatly improved. The ultimate aim of this infrastructure is that it will lead to improved diagnostics, treatment, and survival of patients with ovarian cancer