Fertility-preserving surgical procedures, techniques

peer reviewedAs a result of the trend toward late childbearing, fertility preser- vation has become a major issue in young women with gynaeco- logical cancer. Fertility-sparing treatments have been successfully attempted in selected cases of cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and gynaecologists should be familiar with fertility- preserving options in women with gynaecological malignancies. Options to preserve fertility include shielding to reduce radiation damage, fertility preservation when undergoing cytotoxic treat- ments, cryopreservation, assisted reproduction techniques, and fertility-sparing surgical procedures. Radical vaginal trachelectomy with laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is an oncologically safe, fertility-preserving procedure. It has been accepted worldwide as a surgical treatment of small early stage cervical cancers. Selected cases of early stage ovarian cancer can be treated by unilateral salpingo-ophorectomy and surgical staging. Hysteroscopic resec- tion and progesterone treatment are used in young women who have endometrial cancer to maintain fertility and avoid surgical menopause. Appropriate patient selection, and careful oncologic, psychologic, reproductive and obstetric counselling, is mandatory

International expert consensus on the surgical anatomic classification of radical hysterectomies

Background: The anatomic descriptions and extents of radical hysterectomy often vary across the literature and operative reports worldwide. The same nomenclature is often used to describe varying procedures, and different nomenclature is often used to describe the same procedure despite the availability of guideline and classification systems. This makes it difficult to interpret retrospective surgical reports, analyze surgical databases, understand technique descriptions, and interpret the findings of surgical studies. Objective: In collaboration with international experts in gynecologic oncology, the purpose of this study was to establish a consensus in defining and interpreting the 2017 updated Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomies. Study design: The anatomic templates of type A, B, and C radical hysterectomy were documented through a set of 13 images taken at the time of cadaver dissection. An online survey related to radical hysterectomy nomenclature and definitions or descriptions of the associated procedures was circulated among international experts in radical hysterectomy. A 3-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Image legends were amended according to the experts' responses and then redistributed as part of a second round of the survey. Consensus was defined by a yes response to a question concerning a specific image. Anyone who responded no to a question was welcome to comment and provide justification. A final set of images and legends were compiled to anatomically illustrate and define or describe a lateral, ventral, and dorsal excision of the tissues surrounding the cervix. Results: In total, there were 13 questions to review, and 29 experts completed the whole process. Final consensus exceeded 90% for all questions except 1 (86%). Questions with relatively lower consensus rates concerned the definitions of types A and B2 radical hysterectomy, which were the main innovations of the 2017 updated version of the 2008 Querleu-Morrow classification. Questions with the highest consensus rates concerned the definitions of types B1 and C, which are the most frequently performed radical hysterectomies. Conclusion: The 2017 version of the Querleu-Morrow classification proved to be a robust tool for defining and describing the extent of radical hysterectomies with a high level of consensus among international experts in gynecologic oncology. Knowledge and implementation of the exact definitions of hysterectomy radicality are imperative in clinical practice and clinical research

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer

Background: optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer.To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. Methods: quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. Results: fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. Discussion: implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer

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

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

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Vulvar Cancer

Objective The aim of this study was to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines as part of European Society of Gynaecological Oncology's mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecologic cancers across Europe. Methods The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Council nominated an international development group made of practicing clinicians who provide care to patients with vulvar cancer and have demonstrated leadership and interest in the management of patients with vulvar cancer (18 experts across Europe). To ensure that the statements are evidence based, the current literature identified from a systematic search has been reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group (expert agreement). The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 181 international reviewers including patient representatives independent from the development group. Results The guidelines cover diagnosis and referral, preoperative investigations, surgical management (local treatment, groin treatment including sentinel lymph node procedure, reconstructive surgery), radiation therapy, chemoradiation, systemic treatment, treatment of recurrent disease (vulvar recurrence, groin recurrence, distant metastases), and follow-up

Bringing onco‐innovation to Europe’s healthcare systems: The potential of biomarker testing, real world evidence, tumour agnostic therapies to empower personalised medicine

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by uptake in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. The potential that genomics has brought to biomarker testing in diagnosis, prediction and research is being realised, pre‐eminently in many cancers, but also in an ever‐wider range of conditions— notably BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancers. Nevertheless, the implementation of genetic testing in clinical routine setting is still challenging. Development is impeded by country‐related heterogeneity, data deficiencies, and lack of policy alignment on standards, approval—and the role of real‐world evidence in the process—and reimbursement. The acute nature of the problem is compellingly illustrated by the particular challenges facing the development and use of tumour agnostic therapies, where the gaps in preparedness for taking advantage of this innovative approach to cancer therapy are sharply exposed. Europe should already have in place a guarantee of universal access to a minimum suite of biomarker tests and should be planning for an optimum testing scenario with a wider range of biomarker tests integrated into a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. Improving healthcare and winning advantages for Europe’s industrial competitiveness and innovation require an appropriate policy framework—starting with an update to outdated recommendations. We show herein the main issues and proposals that emerged during the previous advisory boards organised by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine which mainly focus on possible scenarios of harmonisation of both oncogenetic testing and management of cancer patients

Analyse de la prise en charge des patientes atteintes d'un cancer du col utérin diagnostiqué en 2009 dans la région Midi-Pyrénées

TOULOUSE3-BU Santé-Centrale (315552105) / SudocSudocFranceF