Gynecologic Cancer

A recent analysis identified significant disparities in survival outcomes as well as clinical and genetic features between Black and White women with a common subtype of endometrial cancer.

In addition to observing differences in clinical and molecular characteristics, the analysis of real-world registries and clinical trials revealed that Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma had about a twofold higher risk for cancer-related deaths than White patients.

“Even with propensity-score matching, Black patients had a significantly increased risk of death,” Zachary Kopelman, DO, with Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, noted in a presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Importantly, Dr. Kopelman added, the analysis also confirmed “dramatic” underrepresentation of Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma in clinical trials.

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common cancers among women in the United States, with data showing rising incidence and mortality rates. “Worryingly, endometrial cancer is estimated to overtake ovarian cancer as the deadliest gynecologic malignancy this year,” Dr. Kopelman told attendees.

Previous studies have shown that Black patients with endometrial cancer consistently are more likely to have aggressive histologic subtypes, high-grade tumors, and advanced-stage disease and are twice as likely to die from the disease as White patients, he noted.

Within endometrial cancer, the most common histologic subtype is endometrioid, comprising 65%-75% of cases. In other studies examining racial disparities, the endometrioid histology is often combined with other subtypes, such as aggressive uterine serous carcinoma, which may influence study outcomes, Dr. Kopelman explained.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues focused their analyses on Black and White women with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, with the goal of identifying disparities in cancer-related and non-cancer deaths, as well as clinical and molecular features in this patient population.

All women included in the analysis had undergone hysterectomy with or without adjuvant treatment. The researchers used a four-pronged approach incorporating data from the SEER program (2004-2016), the National Cancer Database (2004-2017), eight National Cancer Institute-sponsored randomized phase 3 clinical trials, and the Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange project.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues then performed propensity score matching in the National Cancer Database and exact matching in the randomized controlled trials.

When comparing 47,959 White patients with 4397 Black patients in the SEER dataset, Dr. Kopelman and colleagues found that Black patients had more than two times the risk of dying from their cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04) and a 22% greater risk for a non-cancer death compared with White patients (HR, 1.22).

In the overall National Cancer Database cohort comparing 155,706 White and 13,468 Black patients, Black patients had a 52% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.52). In the propensity score-matched cohort of 13,468 White and 13,468 Black patients, survival among Black patients remained significantly worse, with a 29% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.29).

When looking at clinical trial data, Black patients were more likely than White patients to have worse performance status and a higher grade or recurrent disease, Dr. Kopelman noted.

Black patients in the clinical trials also had significantly worse progression-free survival in both the original cohort (HR, 2.05) and the matched cohort (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22), which matched patients for grade, stage, and treatment arm within each trial and balanced age and performance status. Black patients also had worse overall survival in the original cohort (HR, 2.19) and matched cohort (aHR, 1.32).

Looking at molecular features, Black patients had significantly fewer mutations in a handful of cancer-related gene pathways, including PTEN, PIK3R1, FBXW7, NF1, mTOR, CCND1, and PI3K pathways.

One caveat, said Dr. Kopelman, is that mutations in PTEN are still present in a high percentage of both Black (62%) and White (72%), which «offers a potential attractive therapeutic opportunity.»

The analysis also revealed a major gap in the number of Black vs White patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials, which is a major “problem,” said Dr. Kopelman.

The study confirms “ongoing disparities in enrollment and underrepresentation of minorities in gynecologic cancer clinical trials, as well as poor outcomes, and should really promote us to enhance research in these areas,” said study discussant Mariam AlHilli, MD, with Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

David M. O’Malley, MD, who gave a separate talk during the same session on practical considerations for implication of clinical trials, encouraged clinicians to “just ask.”

“Just ask the patient in front of you — no matter what their ethnicity, their race, or where they’re coming from — are they interested in participating in a clinical trial?” Or better yet, “I have a clinical trial now which I’m excited about for you,” said Dr. O’Malley, with The Ohio State University, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio.The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Kopelman, Dr. O’Malley, and Dr. AlHilli had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A recent analysis identified significant disparities in survival outcomes as well as clinical and genetic features between Black and White women with a common subtype of endometrial cancer.

In addition to observing differences in clinical and molecular characteristics, the analysis of real-world registries and clinical trials revealed that Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma had about a twofold higher risk for cancer-related deaths than White patients.

“Even with propensity-score matching, Black patients had a significantly increased risk of death,” Zachary Kopelman, DO, with Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, noted in a presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Importantly, Dr. Kopelman added, the analysis also confirmed “dramatic” underrepresentation of Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma in clinical trials.

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common cancers among women in the United States, with data showing rising incidence and mortality rates. “Worryingly, endometrial cancer is estimated to overtake ovarian cancer as the deadliest gynecologic malignancy this year,” Dr. Kopelman told attendees.

Previous studies have shown that Black patients with endometrial cancer consistently are more likely to have aggressive histologic subtypes, high-grade tumors, and advanced-stage disease and are twice as likely to die from the disease as White patients, he noted.

Within endometrial cancer, the most common histologic subtype is endometrioid, comprising 65%-75% of cases. In other studies examining racial disparities, the endometrioid histology is often combined with other subtypes, such as aggressive uterine serous carcinoma, which may influence study outcomes, Dr. Kopelman explained.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues focused their analyses on Black and White women with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, with the goal of identifying disparities in cancer-related and non-cancer deaths, as well as clinical and molecular features in this patient population.

All women included in the analysis had undergone hysterectomy with or without adjuvant treatment. The researchers used a four-pronged approach incorporating data from the SEER program (2004-2016), the National Cancer Database (2004-2017), eight National Cancer Institute-sponsored randomized phase 3 clinical trials, and the Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange project.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues then performed propensity score matching in the National Cancer Database and exact matching in the randomized controlled trials.

When comparing 47,959 White patients with 4397 Black patients in the SEER dataset, Dr. Kopelman and colleagues found that Black patients had more than two times the risk of dying from their cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04) and a 22% greater risk for a non-cancer death compared with White patients (HR, 1.22).

In the overall National Cancer Database cohort comparing 155,706 White and 13,468 Black patients, Black patients had a 52% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.52). In the propensity score-matched cohort of 13,468 White and 13,468 Black patients, survival among Black patients remained significantly worse, with a 29% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.29).

When looking at clinical trial data, Black patients were more likely than White patients to have worse performance status and a higher grade or recurrent disease, Dr. Kopelman noted.

Black patients in the clinical trials also had significantly worse progression-free survival in both the original cohort (HR, 2.05) and the matched cohort (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22), which matched patients for grade, stage, and treatment arm within each trial and balanced age and performance status. Black patients also had worse overall survival in the original cohort (HR, 2.19) and matched cohort (aHR, 1.32).

Looking at molecular features, Black patients had significantly fewer mutations in a handful of cancer-related gene pathways, including PTEN, PIK3R1, FBXW7, NF1, mTOR, CCND1, and PI3K pathways.

One caveat, said Dr. Kopelman, is that mutations in PTEN are still present in a high percentage of both Black (62%) and White (72%), which «offers a potential attractive therapeutic opportunity.»

The analysis also revealed a major gap in the number of Black vs White patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials, which is a major “problem,” said Dr. Kopelman.

The study confirms “ongoing disparities in enrollment and underrepresentation of minorities in gynecologic cancer clinical trials, as well as poor outcomes, and should really promote us to enhance research in these areas,” said study discussant Mariam AlHilli, MD, with Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

David M. O’Malley, MD, who gave a separate talk during the same session on practical considerations for implication of clinical trials, encouraged clinicians to “just ask.”

“Just ask the patient in front of you — no matter what their ethnicity, their race, or where they’re coming from — are they interested in participating in a clinical trial?” Or better yet, “I have a clinical trial now which I’m excited about for you,” said Dr. O’Malley, with The Ohio State University, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio.The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Kopelman, Dr. O’Malley, and Dr. AlHilli had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A recent analysis identified significant disparities in survival outcomes as well as clinical and genetic features between Black and White women with a common subtype of endometrial cancer.

In addition to observing differences in clinical and molecular characteristics, the analysis of real-world registries and clinical trials revealed that Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma had about a twofold higher risk for cancer-related deaths than White patients.

“Even with propensity-score matching, Black patients had a significantly increased risk of death,” Zachary Kopelman, DO, with Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, noted in a presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

Importantly, Dr. Kopelman added, the analysis also confirmed “dramatic” underrepresentation of Black patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma in clinical trials.

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common cancers among women in the United States, with data showing rising incidence and mortality rates. “Worryingly, endometrial cancer is estimated to overtake ovarian cancer as the deadliest gynecologic malignancy this year,” Dr. Kopelman told attendees.

Previous studies have shown that Black patients with endometrial cancer consistently are more likely to have aggressive histologic subtypes, high-grade tumors, and advanced-stage disease and are twice as likely to die from the disease as White patients, he noted.

Within endometrial cancer, the most common histologic subtype is endometrioid, comprising 65%-75% of cases. In other studies examining racial disparities, the endometrioid histology is often combined with other subtypes, such as aggressive uterine serous carcinoma, which may influence study outcomes, Dr. Kopelman explained.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues focused their analyses on Black and White women with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, with the goal of identifying disparities in cancer-related and non-cancer deaths, as well as clinical and molecular features in this patient population.

All women included in the analysis had undergone hysterectomy with or without adjuvant treatment. The researchers used a four-pronged approach incorporating data from the SEER program (2004-2016), the National Cancer Database (2004-2017), eight National Cancer Institute-sponsored randomized phase 3 clinical trials, and the Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange project.

Dr. Kopelman and colleagues then performed propensity score matching in the National Cancer Database and exact matching in the randomized controlled trials.

When comparing 47,959 White patients with 4397 Black patients in the SEER dataset, Dr. Kopelman and colleagues found that Black patients had more than two times the risk of dying from their cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04) and a 22% greater risk for a non-cancer death compared with White patients (HR, 1.22).

In the overall National Cancer Database cohort comparing 155,706 White and 13,468 Black patients, Black patients had a 52% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.52). In the propensity score-matched cohort of 13,468 White and 13,468 Black patients, survival among Black patients remained significantly worse, with a 29% greater risk of dying from any cause (HR, 1.29).

When looking at clinical trial data, Black patients were more likely than White patients to have worse performance status and a higher grade or recurrent disease, Dr. Kopelman noted.

Black patients in the clinical trials also had significantly worse progression-free survival in both the original cohort (HR, 2.05) and the matched cohort (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22), which matched patients for grade, stage, and treatment arm within each trial and balanced age and performance status. Black patients also had worse overall survival in the original cohort (HR, 2.19) and matched cohort (aHR, 1.32).

Looking at molecular features, Black patients had significantly fewer mutations in a handful of cancer-related gene pathways, including PTEN, PIK3R1, FBXW7, NF1, mTOR, CCND1, and PI3K pathways.

One caveat, said Dr. Kopelman, is that mutations in PTEN are still present in a high percentage of both Black (62%) and White (72%), which «offers a potential attractive therapeutic opportunity.»

The analysis also revealed a major gap in the number of Black vs White patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials, which is a major “problem,” said Dr. Kopelman.

The study confirms “ongoing disparities in enrollment and underrepresentation of minorities in gynecologic cancer clinical trials, as well as poor outcomes, and should really promote us to enhance research in these areas,” said study discussant Mariam AlHilli, MD, with Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

David M. O’Malley, MD, who gave a separate talk during the same session on practical considerations for implication of clinical trials, encouraged clinicians to “just ask.”

“Just ask the patient in front of you — no matter what their ethnicity, their race, or where they’re coming from — are they interested in participating in a clinical trial?” Or better yet, “I have a clinical trial now which I’m excited about for you,” said Dr. O’Malley, with The Ohio State University, James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio.The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Kopelman, Dr. O’Malley, and Dr. AlHilli had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

An experimental therapeutic DNA vaccine against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) was safe and well tolerated, and successfully cleared the virus in a majority of patients with HPV16-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or 3 in a phase I trial.

The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.

In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.

There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
 

Current Study

Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”

The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.

In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.

The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).

The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.

At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.

Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.

Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.

In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.

In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.

Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.

All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
 

What’s Next?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.

“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.

“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”

Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”

Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.

“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.

The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may serve as an early predictor of response to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with gynecologic cancers, results of a small study suggest.

Among 15 patients with vulvar, cervical, or endometrial malignancies who had serum ctDNA draws prior to, during, and after radiation therapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), both persistence or clearance of residual ctDNA were prognostic of patient outcomes from 3 to 6 months after the end of radiation therapy, reported A. Gabriella Wernicke, MD, MSc, a radiation oncologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“Our early findings in this limited cohort suggest that a mid-treatment ctDNA draw identified responders to radiation, and that may potentially serve as an early predictive biomarker of response. And clearly, these findings need to be validated in a prospective manner, a trial which will be starting in our center soon,” she said in an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.

Gynecologic malignancies are challenging to manage with radiotherapy because of the treatment’s toxicities and because outcomes may not be known until several months after the end of therapy. Early identification of responses to radiation therapy with simple blood draws has the potential to help clinicians identify those patients whose tumors are responding to radiation early in the course of therapy, she said.
 

Correlating treatment with responses

Dr. Wernicke and colleagues tested their hypothesis that the ctDNA is predictive of treatment response in patients receiving RT or CRT by retrospectively assessing the correlation of clinical responses to ctDNA detection and dynamics.

Their sample included 15 women with vulvar, cervical, or recurrent endometrial cancer who were treated with RT or CRT in 2022 and 2023.

The samples were collected prior to radiation therapy, mid-treatment, prior to boost dose with brachytherapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy, at the end of treatment, and at follow-up at 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of therapy and every 6 months thereafter.

The ctDNA analysis was performed with a personalized assay consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing. The assays assessed clonal mutations found in the tumors of each patient.

Of the 15 patients, 5 had vulvar/vaginal tumors, all of squamous cell carcinoma histology. Six patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, and one had neuroendocrine cervical tumors. The two remaining patients had recurrent endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Eight of the patients had stage III disease, four had stage I or II, one had stage IV, and two had recurrent disease.
 

Results

At baseline 13 of the patients had detectable ctDNA, measured as greater than 0.00 mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma (MTM/mL).

There was a strong correlation between elevated ctDNA and measurable disease evaluated by standardized uptake values (SUV) on imaging pre treatment (correlation coefficient = 0.87, P less than .0001).

All patients had reductions in ctDNA from baseline to post-RT/CRT, with 2 having a reduction (partial metabolic response) and 13 having undetectable ctDNA (complete metabolic response) at the end of RT/CRT.

From the mid-treatment blood draw to the posttreatment draw 33% of patients had a partial metabolic response, and 67% had a complete response.

Reduction or clearance of ctDNA also correlated with a decrease in disease burden on MRI during the pre-boost phase of RT.

“Patients with undetectable ctDNA, meaning a complete metabolic response, at mid-radiation and at the end of radiation continued to be clinically without evidence of disease and with undetectable ctDNA at follow-up,” Dr. Wernicke said.

In contrast, the two patients who had partial metabolic responses had disease progression at the end of treatment. Dr. Wernicke noted that one of these patients, who was treated for a neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix and had undergone both systemic therapy and CRT, was found to have disease metastatic to the liver and lungs at the 3-month follow-up.
 

How to Use It?

Invited discussant Casey M. Cosgrove, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Centers facility in Hilliard, Ohio, said that the reduction of ctDNA levels in all patients was “great,” but the question remains about how the information from ctDNA might be used to guide care in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

“The main questions I have are: If I don’t clear the ctDNA do I need to do more therapy? If I do clear does that mean I need to do less therapy? And if I have negative ctDNA to start what do I do?” he said.

The answers will be found only with further prospective studies, he emphasized.

“These technologies are only going to get better, and better, and better, and this is going to be a conversation that our patients are going to be bringing up, and this is going to be technology that we’re going to be using in our clinics in the very near future,” he added.

Session comoderator Michael Bookman, MD, a gynecology oncologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, said “it’s worth remembering that FDA approval of a diagnostic test can be obtained prior to showing any clinical benefit. So these are tests that measure what they say they’re measuring, but they haven’t been validated as improving clinical outcomes, which is the task that clearly lies ahead of us.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Wernicke reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cosgrove reported a consulting or advisory role for Intuitive Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, and Merck, and research fees from GSK. Dr. Bookman reported clinical trial advising/monitoring for Immunogen and Clovis Oncology, with fees paid to his institution.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.