ABSTRACT
@#Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) with a concurrent cervical malignancy is very rare, making the case both a diagnostic dilemma and a therapeutic challenge. Currently, there has only been one reported case worldwide. We present a case of GTN Stage I:11 with non‑keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix Stage II‑B. Initial treatment, in the form of chemotherapy, was directed toward the GTN, as this appeared to be the more aggressive disease. Surgery was not feasible during diagnosis due to the cervical carcinoma. However, the GTN proved resistant to chemotherapy due to the increasing beta human chorionic gonadotropin titers. An attempt to decrease the size of the cervix for surgery to be possible through chemoradiation was instituted, but due to complications and tumor progression to the lungs, she succumbed to the malignancy.
Subject(s)
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Gestational Trophoblastic DiseaseABSTRACT
Objective@#To describe the experience of the Division of Trophoblastic Diseases of the Philippine General Hospital with the various third‑line chemotherapeutic regimens among high‑risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients who experienced resistance after receiving the etoposide, cisplatin–etoposide, methotrexate, actinomycin (EP‑EMA) regimen@*Materials and Methods@#This was a 17‑year descriptive study that included all patients who used various salvage chemotherapy after resistance to EP‑EMA as treatment for metastatic, high‑risk GTN at the Philippine General Hospital from January 2002 to December 2018. The medical records of eligible patients were retrieved and assessed. All abstracted data were analyzed retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were used to compute for percentages for the various demographic characteristics of the sample population@*Results@#From January 2002 to December 2018, a total of 291 patients with metastatic, high‑risk gestational GTN were treated at the Philippine General Hospital. Of these, only seven patients received various third‑line chemotherapy regimens after resistance to EP‑EMA. One patient was excluded due to incomplete data. Among the third‑line chemotherapeutic regimens used, 3 patients received paclitaxel/carboplatin, two of whom went into remission while one expired. One patient had vincristine, bleomycin, and cisplatin (VBP) with two adjunctive surgeries in the form of hysterectomy and thoracotomy. She also went into remission. Two patients received paclitaxel–cisplatin/paclitaxeletoposide (TP/TE) as third line of treatment. The first was shifted back to EP‑EMA and eventually developed chemoresistance to EP‑EMA and had multiple toxicities. After multidisciplinary conference with the patient and family, they decided to go home and refused further chemotherapy. The other patient had TP/TE followed by bleomycin–etoposide–cisplatin, with adjunctive hysterectomy. Despite multiple cycles of chemotherapy, the disease persisted. She was offered palliative care and the family decided to bring her home. Both patients eventually expired at home@*Conclusion@#No conclusion can be made about the most effective third line chemotherapy for resistant high‑risk GTN because of the limited cases included in this study. An individualized approach is still recommended. Physicians and centers for patients caring for such patients are encouraged to report their experience to improve the management of future patients
Subject(s)
Gestational Trophoblastic DiseaseABSTRACT
@#The first documented description of hydatidiform mole dates back to 400 BC when Hippocrates (470–410 BC) explained its formation through the consumption of dirty water by the pregnant woman. Interestingly, in 1276, the countess of Henneberg reportedly died after giving birth to “as many children as there were days in the year”. In 1752, William Smelie coined the terms mole and hydatidiform to describe the pathology as a bunch of grapes consisting of different sizes. Indeed, this condition that we have come to recognize as a hydatidiform mole (HM) has fascinated humans for centuries. But, it was not until 1903 when it was formally recognized as a clinical entity.