Stephanie Ricci

Does adjuvant chemotherapy improve survival for women with early-stage uterine leiomyosarcoma?

OBJECTIVES To examine whether adjuvant therapy after primary surgery for treatment of early-stage uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) improves recurrence and survival rates. METHODS A multisite, retrospective study of women diagnosed with stage I-II high grade LMS from 1990-2010 was performed. All patients (pts) underwent primary surgery followed by observation (OBS), radiotherapy (RT), or chemotherapy (CT) postoperatively. RESULTS One hundred eight patients were identified with long-term follow-up; 94 pts (87.0%) had stage I and 14 (13.0%) had stage II disease. The mean patient age was 55.4 years and mean BMI was 28.0. Thirty-four (31.5%) patients underwent OBS, 35 (32.4%) received RT, and 39 (36.1%) received chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 41.8 months, a recurrence was diagnosed in 70.8%. Recurrence was evident in 25/34 (73.5%) OBS, 23/35 (65.7%) RT, and 28/39 (71.8%) of CT cohorts and was not different based on treatment (p=0.413). However, extra-pelvic recurrences were significantly higher in the RT (95.2%) than in the OBS (60%) or CT (64.3%) cohorts (p=0.012). Additionally, recurrences were more likely to be successfully treated or palliated in those who initially received CT (p=0.031). On multivariate analysis, stage (p<0.001) and chemotherapy (p=0.045) were associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Women with early-stage, high grade uterine LMS experience high recurrence rates and poor survival outcomes, irrespective of adjuvant therapy. These rates are higher than previously reported in the literature. Although women treated with CT had similar recurrence rates as those treated with OBS or RT, treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy may decrease the risk of extra-pelvic recurrence and improve survival.

Impact of histology and surgical approach on survival among women with early-stage, high-grade uterine cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary analysis

OBJECTIVES We sought to analyze the clinicopathologic features, recurrence patterns and survival outcomes of women with high-grade uterine cancer (UC) enrolled on The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) LAP2 trial. METHODS This is a post-hoc analysis of LAP-2 patients with grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma (ENDO), uterine serous (USC), clear cell (CC) and carcinosarcoma (CS). Demographics, clinicopathologic features, and recurrence patterns, were compared by histology and surgical approach. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Of the 2600 patients enrolled in LAP-2, 753 patients had high-grade UC: 350 had ENDO, 289 had USC, 42 had CC and 72 had CS. Compared with the ENDO cohort, those with other high-grade subtypes were older (p<0.001) and were more likely to have positive peritoneal cytology (p<0.001), positive lymph nodes (p=0.05) and higher disease stage on final pathology (p<0.001). With a median follow-up time of 60months, compared to patients with ENDO, those with USC, CCC and CS subtypes had higher recurrence rates (p<0.001), extra-pelvic recurrences (p<0.001) and poorer PFS (p<0.001) and OS (p<0.001). Those diagnosed with USC and CS experienced the worst survival outcomes (p=0.003). Patterns of recurrence and survival were not different in those staged with LSC vs LAP. On multivariable analysis, age, stage, pelvic washings and Type II histology were independently and adversely associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS Women with apparent early-stage, USC and CS histologies have poorer outcomes than women with grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Patterns of recurrence and survival were not impacted by surgical approach.

A multi-institutional study of outcomes in stage I–III uterine carcinosarcoma

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of adjuvant therapy after primary surgery for stage I-III uterine carcinosarcoma (CS). METHODS A multi-institutional retrospective study of women with stage I-III CS was conducted. Analyses were stratified by stage (I/II and III). Patients were categorized according to adjuvant therapy: observation (OBS), radiation (RT), chemotherapy (CT) or multimodal therapy (CT+RT). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS 303 patients were identified across four institutions: 195 with stage I/II and 108 with stage III disease. In stage I/II disease, 75 (39.9%) received OBS, 33 (17.6%) CT, 37 (19.7%) RT, and 43 (22.9%) CT+RT. OBS was associated with a fourfold increased risk of death compared to CT (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=4.48, p=0.003). Patients receiving CT+RT had significantly improved PFS compared to those receiving CT alone (aHR=0.43, p=0.04), but no difference in OS. In the stage III cohort, 16 (15.0%) received OBS, 34 (31.8%) CT, 20 (18.7%) RT, and 37 (34.6%) CT+RT. OBS was associated with worse OS and PFS compared to CT (OS: aHR=2.46, p=0.04; PFS: aHR=2.39, p=0.03, respectively). A potential improvement in PFS was seen for those treated with CT+RT compared to CT alone, however it was not statistically significant (aHR=0.53, p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS Observation after surgery was associated with poor outcomes in uterine CS compared to CT and RT alone. Multimodality therapy for women with stage I/II disease was associated with improved PFS compared to chemotherapy alone. Novel treatment options are needed to improve outcomes in this aggressive disease.

Geographic disparities in the distribution of the U.S. gynecologic oncology workforce: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology study

A recent ASCO workforce study projects a significant shortage of oncologists in the U.S. by 2020, especially in rural/underserved (R/US) areas. The current study aim was to determine the patterns of distribution of U.S. gynecologic oncologists (GO) and to identify provider-based attitudes and barriers that may prevent GOs from practicing in R/US regions. U.S. GOs (n = 743) were electronically solicited to participate in an on-line survey regarding geographic distribution and participation in outreach care. A total of 320 GOs (43%) responded; median age range was 35–45 years and 57% were male. Most practiced in an urban setting (72%) at a university hospital (43%). Only 13% of GOs practiced in an area with a population < 50,000. A desire to remain in academics and exposure to senior-level mentorship were the factors most influencing initial practice location. Approximately 50% believed geographic disparities exist in GO workforce distribution that pose access barriers to care; however, 39% “strongly agreed” that cancer patients who live in R/US regions should travel to urban cancer centers to receive care within a center of excellence model. GOs who practice within 50 miles of only 0–5 other GOs were more likely to provide R/US care compared to those practicing within 50 miles of ≥ 10 GOs (p < 0.0001). Most (39%) believed the major barriers to providing cancer care in R/US areas were volume and systems-based. Most also believed the best solution was a hybrid approach, with coordination of local and centralized cancer care services. Among GOs, a self-reported rural-urban disparity exists in the density of gynecologic oncologists. These study findings may help address barriers to providing cancer care in R/US practice environments.

Screening for Ovarian Cancer: A Reality Check

Detection of stage I neoplastic disease has become the major goal for cancer prevention and reduction of cancer-associated mortality. Whereas this goal is realized in many human solid tumors, including carcinomas arising from breast, endometrium, prostate, and gastrointestinal tract, it has become a tantalizing objective in ovarian cancer. Several population-based clinical studies designed to screen for early stage ovarian cancer fail to provide a clinically satisfied positive predictive value and, as a result, lead to several unnecessary surgeries that are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. One of the reasons is that high-grade serous carcinoma—the most common and lethal ovarian cancer—may likely arise from fallopian tube epithelium and involve the ovary secondarily. Therefore, “ovarian” cancer is unlikely ever stage I at presentation. This commentary will briefly summarize the recent findings in ovarian cancer screening and discuss the challenges, promise, and reality for early detection of ovarian cancer.