65
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer : Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

          Abstract

          The first joint European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) consensus conference on endometrial cancer was held on 11–13 December 2014 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of endometrial cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared three clinically-relevant questions about endometrial cancer relating to the following four areas: prevention and screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment and advanced and recurrent disease. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. Results of this consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this article. All participants have approved this final article.

          Related collections

          Most cited references177

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study

            (2009)
            Summary Background Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is the standard surgery for stage I endometrial cancer. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy has been used to establish whether there is extra-uterine disease and as a therapeutic procedure; however, randomised trials need to be done to assess therapeutic efficacy. The ASTEC surgical trial investigated whether pelvic lymphadenectomy could improve survival of women with endometrial cancer. Methods From 85 centres in four countries, 1408 women with histologically proven endometrial carcinoma thought preoperatively to be confined to the corpus were randomly allocated by a minimisation method to standard surgery (hysterectomy and BSO, peritoneal washings, and palpation of para-aortic nodes; n=704) or standard surgery plus lymphadenectomy (n=704). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. To control for postsurgical treatment, women with early-stage disease at intermediate or high risk of recurrence were randomised (independent of lymph-node status) into the ASTEC radiotherapy trial. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 16571884. Findings After a median follow-up of 37 months (IQR 24–58), 191 women (88 standard surgery group, 103 lymphadenectomy group) had died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·16 (95% CI 0·87–1·54; p=0·31) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year overall survival of 1% (95% CI −4 to 6). 251 women died or had recurrent disease (107 standard surgery group, 144 lymphadenectomy group), with an HR of 1·35 (1·06–1·73; p=0·017) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival of 6% (1–12). With adjustment for baseline characteristics and pathology details, the HR for overall survival was 1·04 (0·74–1·45; p=0·83) and for recurrence-free survival was 1·25 (0·93–1·66; p=0·14). Interpretation Our results show no evidence of benefit in terms of overall or recurrence-free survival for pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early endometrial cancer. Pelvic lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended as routine procedure for therapeutic purposes outside of clinical trials. Funding Medical Research Council and National Cancer Research Network.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial.

              Pelvic lymph nodes are the most common site of extrauterine tumor spread in early-stage endometrial cancer, but the clinical impact of lymphadenectomy has not been addressed in randomized studies. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether the addition of pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy to standard hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy improves overall and disease-free survival. From October 1, 1996, through March 31, 2006, 514 eligible patients with preoperative International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I endometrial carcinoma were randomly assigned to undergo pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (n = 264) or no lymphadenectomy (n = 250). Patients' clinical data, pathological tumor characteristics, and operative and early postoperative data were recorded at discharge from hospital. Late postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, and follow-up data were collected 6 months after surgery. Survival was analyzed by use of the log-rank test and a Cox multivariable regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 30 (interquartile range = 22-42) in the pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy arm and 0 (interquartile range = 0-0) in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (P < .001). Both early and late postoperative complications occurred statistically significantly more frequently in patients who had received pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (81 patients in the lymphadenectomy arm and 34 patients in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, P = .001). Pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy improved surgical staging as statistically significantly more patients with lymph node metastases were found in the lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (13.3% vs 3.2%, difference = 10.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 14.9%, P < .001). At a median follow-up of 49 months, 78 events (ie, recurrence or death) had been observed and 53 patients had died. The unadjusted risks for first event and death were similar between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR] for first event = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.71, P = .68, and HR for death = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.07, P = .50). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates in an intention-to-treat analysis were similar between arms (81.0% and 85.9% in the lymphadenectomy arm and 81.7% and 90.0% in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, respectively). Although systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy statistically significantly improved surgical staging, it did not improve disease-free or overall survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Gynecol Cancer
                Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer
                IGJ
                International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                1048-891X
                1525-1438
                January 2016
                12 November 2015
                : 26
                : 1
                : 2-30
                Affiliations
                [1]*Division of Medical Gynecologic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology and University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; †Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; ‡Department of Gynecological Oncology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; §Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; ∥Medical Oncology Department, GEICO and MD Anderson Cancer Center, Madrid, Spain; ¶Department of Oncology and Cancer Trials, UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom; #Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria; **Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; ††Department of Surgery, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France and Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; ‡‡Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; and §§Department of Medical Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
                Author notes
                Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof Nicoletta Colombo, ESMO Guidelines Committee, ESMO Head Office, Via L. Taddei 4, CH-6962 Viganello-Lugano, Switzerland. E-mail: clinicalguidelines@ 123456esmo.org .
                Article
                IGJ50159 00002
                10.1097/IGC.0000000000000609
                4679344
                26645990
                81116524-e5c1-49b1-9732-b964c2a0abe6
                Copyright © 2015 by The Authors

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

                History
                Categories
                Esgo
                Custom metadata
                T
                TRUE

                endometrial neoplasms,practice guideline,consensus,treatment,adjuvant,surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article