Management of metastatic endometrial cancer: physicians' choices beyond the first line after approval of checkpoint inhibitors.

Introduction: Endometrial cancer (EC) represents 3.4% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases and is responsible for 2.1% of all cancer-related deaths. Approximately 10%-15% of women with EC are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, resulting in a reported 5-year survival rate of only 17% for those with distant metastases. A better understanding of its molecular features has ushered in a new era of immunotherapy for the treatment of EC, allowing for alternative therapeutic approaches, even in cases of advanced disease. Methods: We administered a multi-choice online survey for Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) members. The questionnaire was available for 2 months, starting in October 2022. Our objective was to evaluate the current attitude of incorporating molecular characterization of EC into routine clinical practice, appraise the implementation of newly available therapies, and compare the outcomes with the previous survey conducted in April-May 2021 to ascertain the actual changes that have transpired during this recent time period. Results: The availability of molecular classification in Italian centers has changed in 1 year. Seventy-five percent of centers performed the molecular classification compared with 55.6% of the previous survey. Although this percentage has increased, only 18% performed all the tests. Significant changes have occurred in the administration of new treatments in EC patients in MITO centers. In 2022, 82.1% of the centers administrated dostarlimab in recurrent or advanced MMR-deficient (dMMR) EC experiencing disease progression after platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, compared to only 24.4% in 2021. In 2022, 85.7% of the centers already administrated the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib combination as a second-line therapy for MMR-proficient (pMMR) patients with advanced or recurrent EC who had progressed from first-line platinum-based therapy. Conclusion: Both the therapeutic and diagnostic scenarios have changed over the last couple of years in MITO centers, with an increased prescription of immune checkpoint inhibitors and use of the molecular classification.

Prescribing pattern of anticoagulants in patients with cancer associated thrombosis: Results of a survey among MITO group and AIOM society.

INTRODUCTION: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the backbone of the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown efficacy and safety not inferior to LMWH and guidelines included DOACs as an option for CAT treatment. Nevertheless, DOACs are still poorly prescribed in patients with cancer. The aim of this survey was to better understand prescription patterns of anticoagulants, in particular of DOACs, especially in gynecological cancers (GCs). METHODS: Our survey was made up of 21 questions, the last four questions addressed to medical doctors (MDs) involved in GCs. An invitation to complete the survey was sent by e-mail to 691 MITO (Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynaecologic malignancies) and 2093 AIOM (Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica) members. RESULTS: Overall, 113 MDs completed the questionnaire, 69 involved in GCs. Most respondents (46, 41%) were aged 30-40 years old, worked in public hospitals (59, 52.2%), were medical oncologists (86, 76.1%). LMWH was the preferred choice for the treatment of CAT (104, 92%). However, 89 respondents (78.8%) prescribed or asked to prescribe a DOAC for CAT. The major concern about DOACs was the difficulty in verifying the therapeutic effect and the absence of antidotes in case of bleeding (37.9%). In patients with GCs, DOACs were used with niraparib, olaparib, rucaparib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in less than 10 patients by 23%, 20%, 9% and 10.2% of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSION: The responders are aware of the Direct-acting oral anticoagulants option and would like to use them.

Corrigendum: Management of metastatic endometrial cancer: physicians' choices beyond the first line after approval of checkpoint inhibitors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1247291.].

Management of Metastatic Endometrial Cancer: Physicians' Choices Beyond the First Line. A MITO Survey.

Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) therapeutic and diagnostic approaches have been changed by the development of a new prognostic molecular classification, the introduction of dostarlimab in microsatellite instability (MSI) high pre-treated advanced EC patients with further expected innovation deriving from lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab regardless MSI status. How this is and will be translated and embedded in the clinical setting in Italy is not known; this is why we developed Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynaecologic malignancies (MITO) survey on the current practice and expected future changes in EC. Methods: We designed a self-administered, multiple-choice online questionnaire available only for MITO members for one month, starting in April 2021. Results: 75.6% of the respondents were oncologists with a specific focus on gynaecologic malignancies and 73.3% of the respondents declared the availability of clinical trials in second line treatment for advanced EC. The therapeutic algorithm in second line was heterogeneous, being the most frequent choice administering anthracyclines followed by endocrine therapy or enrolling in clinical trials. While more than half of the clinicians declared that they performed the molecular classification, only six/45 respondents (13.3%) ran all the tests needed for it. On the other hand, 80% of them declared regular assessment of MSI status with IHC as recommended. The therapeutic approach in MSI high advanced EC patients has changed since dostarlimab approval. Indeed the most frequent choice in second line has been chemotherapy (53.3%) before its availability, while dostarlimab has been preferred in more than three-fourths of the cases (75.6%) after its approval. As for MSS patients, 77.8% of clinicians would choose lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for them in second line once approved. Conclusions: Despite the selected sample of respondents from Italian MITO centres showing good knowledge of diagnostic and therapeutic innovations in EC, these are not fully implemented in everyday clinics, except for MSI status assessment.