Pathologic distribution at the time of interval tumor reductive surgery informs personalized surgery for high-grade ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical approach for interval debulking surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been extrapolated from primary tumor reductive surgery for high-grade ovarian cancer. The study objective was to compare pathologic distribution of malignancy at interval debulking surgery versus primary tumor reductive surgery. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of high-grade serous or mixed, non-mucinous, epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy or primary tumor reductive surgery and had at least 6 months of follow-up were identified through tumor registry at a single institution from January 1995 to April 2016. Pathologic involvement of organs was categorized as macroscopic, microscopic, or no tumor. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Of 918 patients identified, 366 (39.9%) patients underwent interval debulking surgery and 552 (60.1%) patients underwent primary tumor reductive surgery. Median age was 62.3 years (range 25.3-92.5). The majority of patients in the interval debulking surgery group were unstaged (261, 71.5%). In the patients who had a primary tumor reductive surgery, 406 (74.6%) had stage III disease. In both groups, the majority of patients had serous histology: 325 (90%) and 435 (78.8%) in the interval debulking and primary tumor reductive surgery groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between disease distribution on the uterus between the groups; 31.4% of the patients undergoing interval debulking surgery had no evidence of uterine disease compared with 22.1% of primary tumor reductive surgery specimens (p<0.001). In the adnexa, there was macroscopic disease present in 253 (69.2%) and 482 (87.4%) of cases in the interval vs primary surgery groups, respectively (p<0.001). Within the omentum, no tumor was present in the omentum in 52 (14.2%) in the interval surgery group versus 91 (16.5%) in the primary surgery group (p<0.001). In the interval surgery group, there was no tumor involving the small and large bowel in 49 (13.4%) and 28 (7.7%) pathologic specimens, respectively. This was statistically significantly different from the small and large bowel in the primary surgery group, of which there was no tumor in 20 (3.6%, p<0.001) and 16 (2.9%, p<0.001) of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing interval debulking surgery, there was less macroscopic involvement of tumor in the uterus, adnexa and bowel compared with patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery.

Treatment of Low-Risk Endometrial Cancer and Complex Atypical Hyperplasia With the Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or low-grade endometrial cancer. METHODS: This retrospective case series included all patients treated with the LNG-IUD for complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer from January 2003 to June 2013. Response rates were calculated and the association of response with clinicopathologic factors, including age, body mass index, and uterine size, was determined. RESULTS: Forty-six patients diagnosed with complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer were treated with the LNG-IUD. Of 32 evaluable patients at the 6-month time point, 15 had complex atypical hyperplasia (47%), nine had G1 endometrial cancer (28%), and eight had grade 2 endometrial cancer (25%). Overall response rate was 75% (95% CI 57-89) at 6 months; 80% (95% CI 52-96) in complex atypical hyperplasia, 67% (95% CI 30-93) in grade 1 endometrial cancer, and 75% (CI 35-97) in grade 2 endometrial cancer. Of the clinicopathologic features evaluated, there was a trend toward the association of lack of exogenous progesterone effect in the pathology specimen with nonresponse to the IUD (P=.05). Median uterine diameter was 1.3 cm larger in women who did not respond to the IUD (P=.04). CONCLUSION: Levonorgestrel-releasing IUD therapy for the conservative treatment of complex atypical hyperplasia or early-grade endometrial cancer resulted in return to normal histology in a majority of patients.

Factors prognostic of survival in advanced-stage uterine serous carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to analyze the impact of prognostic factors, including treatment modality, on outcome in patients with advanced-stage uterine serous carcinoma (USC). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV USC between 1993 and 2012 was performed. Summary statistics were used to describe demographic and clinical characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the association of potential prognostic factors with OS and RFS. RESULTS: The study included 260 patients with median follow-up of 26.6months (range 1-172.8). Median age was 63years (range 30-88) and 52.3% had stage III disease. In all, 60% were treated with surgery followed by chemotherapy, 18.1% received surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, 11.5% had surgery and radiotherapy, and 10.4% had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The overall complete response rate was 68.9%, and the cumulative incidence of recurrence was 82.7%. Treatment that included surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation and stage III disease were associated with improved RFS on multivariate analysis. For OS, therapy with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, mixed histology, and stage III disease were associated with better OS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced-stage USC have a poor prognosis, regardless of clinical factors or treatment received. However, combination therapy that includes chemotherapy and radiation appears to be associated with improved survival in these women.