Hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both for women with locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Many new cervical cancer cases in low-income countries present at an advanced stage. Standard care in Europe and the US for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is chemoradiotherapy. In low-income countries, with limited access to radiotherapy, LACC may be treated with chemotherapy and hysterectomy. It is not certain if this improves survival. It is important to assess the value of hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC (Stage IB2 to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, LILACS, trial registries and the grey literature up to 3 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stages IB2 to III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) survival in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Adverse events (AEs) were incompletely reported and we described the results of single trials in narrative form. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the searches we identified 968 studies. After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, we included 11 RCTs (2683 women) of varying methodological quality. This update identified four new RCTs and three ongoing RCTs. The included studies compared: hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) alone or CCRT and brachytherapy. There is also one ongoing study comparing three groups: hysterectomy with CCRT versus hysterectomy with NACT versus CCRT. There were two comparison groups for which we were able to do a meta-analysis. Hysterectomy (radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone Two RCTs with similar design characteristics (620 and 633 participants) found no difference in five-year OS between NACT with hysterectomy versus CCRT. Meta-analysis assessing 1253 participants found no evidence of a difference in risk of death (OS) between women who received NACT plus hysterectomy and those who received CCRT alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). In both studies, the five-year DFS in the NACT plus surgery group was worse (57%) compared with the CCRT group (65.6%), mostly for Stage IIB. Results of single trials reported no apparent difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between groups (very low-quality evidence). Hysterectomy (simple or radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone Meta-analysis of three trials of NACT with hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received NACT plus hysterectomy had less risk of death (OS) than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, a significant number of participants who received NACT plus hysterectomy also had radiotherapy. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence (DFS and PFS) between NACT plus hysterectomy and radiotherapy groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05; I2 = 20%; moderate-quality evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low or very-low for all other comparisons for all outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with LACC who are treated with radiotherapy or CCRT alone. The overall certainty of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for NACT and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate. The same occurred for the comparison involving NACT and hysterectomy compared with CCRT alone. Evidence from other comparisons was generally sparse and of low or very low-certainty. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials assessing medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy or both for women with locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second commonest cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Sources suggest that a very high proportion of new cervical cancer cases in developing countries are at an advanced stage (IB2 or more) and more than a half of these may be stage III or IV. Cervical cancer staging is based on findings from clinical examination (FIGO) staging). Standard care in Europe and US for stage IB2 to III is non-surgical treatment (chemoradiation). However in developing countries, where there is limited access to radiotherapy, locally advanced cervical cancer may be treated with a combination of chemotherapy and hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb and the neck of the womb, with or without the surrounding tissues). It is not certain if this improves survival. Therefore, it is important to systematically assess the value of hysterectomy in addition to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative intervention in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB2 to III). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiation or chemotherapy, or both, in women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB2 to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to February 2014. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment protocols involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with advanced stage (IB2 to III) cervical cancer presenting for the first time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed study eligibility independently, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, overall and progression or disease-free survival outcomes were synthesised in a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Adverse events were incompletely reported so results of single trials were described in narrative form. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (1217 women) of varying methodological quality in the review; most trials were at moderate or high risk of bias.Three were multi-centre trials, two were single-centre trials, and in two trials it was unclear if they were single or multi-centre. These trials compared the following interventions for women with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2 to III):hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy (N = 194) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 180); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 31) versus chemoradiotherapy alone (N = 30); hysterectomy (radical) with chemoradiotherapy (N = 111) versus internal radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy (N = 100); hysterectomy (simple or radical) with upfront (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy (N = 298) versus radiotherapy alone (N = 273).One trial (N = 256) found no difference in the risk of death or disease progression between women who received attenuated radiotherapy followed by hysterectomy and those who received radiotherapy (external and internal) alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.29). This trial also reported no difference between the two groups in terms of adverse effects (18/129 grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the hysterectomy and radiation group and 19 cases in 18/121 women in the radiotherapy alone group). There was no difference in 5-year tumour-free actuarial survival (representation of the probable years of survivorship of a defined population of participants) or severe complications (grade 3) in another trial (N = 118) which reported the same comparison (6/62 versus 6/56 in the radiation with surgery group versus the radiotherapy alone group, respectively). The quality of the evidence was low for all these outcomes.One trial (N = 61) reported no difference (P value > 0.10) in overall and recurrence-free survival at 3 years between chemoradiotherapy and hysterectomy versus chemoradiotherapy alone (low quality evidence). Adverse events and morbidity data were not reported.Similarly, another trial (N = 211) found no difference in the risk of death (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.21, P value = 0.19, low quality evidence), disease progression (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.34, P value = 0.24, low quality evidence) or severe late complications (P value = 0.53, low quality evidence) between women who received internal radiotherapy versus hysterectomy after both groups had received external-beam chemoradiotherapy.Meta analysis of three trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had less risk of death than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). However, a significant number of the participants that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus hysterectomy had radiotherapy as well. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence between the two groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05, I(2) = 20%, moderate quality evidence).Results of single trials reported no apparent (P value > 0.05) difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between the two groups (low quality evidence).Quality of life outcomes were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with locally advanced cervical cancer who are treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy alone. The overall quality of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate, with evidence from other comparisons of low quality. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials that assess medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Expanding the morphologic spectrum of differentiated VIN (dVIN) through detailed mapping of cases with p53 loss.

The pathogenesis of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma follows 1 of 2 distinct pathways. A precursor lesion in the human papilloma virus-independent pathway, differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (dVIN), was only recently characterized in detail and is infrequently diagnosed without an associated component of invasive carcinoma. Aberrant p53 immunostaining is frequently seen in dVIN, and in approximately 25% to 30% of cases it manifests as a complete loss or a p53-null pattern. The abrupt transition between p53 loss and basal p53 expression in lesional versus nonlesional epithelium allows clear demarcation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic epithelium. For this study, 14 specimens from 10 patients were identified from the pathology archives of 2 teaching hospitals on the basis of: (1) a diagnosis of dVIN, with or without invasive carcinoma; and (2) p53-null immunostaining pattern in lesional cells. Ten specimens had associated invasive carcinoma. All sections from each specimen that showed the specimen resection margin were stained for p53 and reviewed together with all hematoxylin and eosin sections. Detailed morphologic assessment of the p53-null epithelium was made and compared with the adjacent benign squamous epithelium. The status of the resection margins based on the original pathologic assessment was compared with that assessed with p53 immunohistochemistry. One specimen showed p53 loss in the invasive carcinoma but patchy basal positivity in the region originally diagnosed as dVIN, supporting interpretation as a benign hyperplastic focus, rather than dVIN. In the remaining 13 specimens the areas originally diagnosed as dVIN, as well as the associated invasive carcinoma (if present), were p53-null. In 8 of these specimens, on the basis of the presence of p53-null immunostaining and subtle morphologic abnormalities, dVIN was more extensive than originally recognized. The spectrum of morphologic changes in p53-null regions that were in continuity with areas originally recognized as dVIN were subtle and typically consisted of an abrupt change in maturation of the squamous epithelium (loss of keratohyaline granules and parakeratosis), tinctorial alterations in the keratinocytes, with cells containing more abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, and minimal basal nuclear atypia. Margin status changed from negative to positive in 4 of 13 specimens and from focally to more extensively positive in an additional 3 specimens. In summary, the clonal in situ component of non-human papilloma virus vulvar squamous cell carcinoma can be characterized by very subtle morphologic abnormalities that may be misinterpreted as benign change. This results in underestimation of the extent of dVIN, and, as a result, resection margin involvement may be significantly underestimated. dVIN can also be overdiagnosed in areas of reactive change. Better tools for diagnosis of dVIN are needed; until such tools are developed the limitations in the current diagnosis of dVIN should be recognized.

Surgical treatment of stage IA2 cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 cervical cancer have measured stromal invasion (when the cancer breaks through the basement membrane of the epithelium) of greater than 3 mm and no greater than 5 mm in depth with a horizontal surface extension of no more than 7 mm. For stage IA2 disease, radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy is the standard treatment. In order to avoid complications of more radical surgical methods, less invasive options, such as simple hysterectomy, simple trachelectomy or conisation, with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy, may be feasible for stage IA2 disease, considering the relative low risk of local or distant metastatic disease. The evidence for less radical tumour excision and for the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in stage IA2 cervical cancer is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of less radical surgery in stage IA2 cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials and abstracts of scientific meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and, therefore, no data were analysed. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 982 unique references, which were all excluded on the basis of title and abstract because it was clear that they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We identified one relevant large ongoing trial, so it is anticipated that we will be able to add this evidence to this review in the future. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to inform decisions about different surgical techniques in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer. In the future, the results of one large ongoing RCT should allow comparison of different types of surgery.

Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011.Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease, radiotherapy is extended to cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is confirmed. Therefore, accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2012). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS: We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial that was at moderate risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review no new studies were found.From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However, this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore, the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.

Is differentiated vulval intraepithelial neoplasia the precursor lesion of human papillomavirus-negative vulval squamous cell carcinoma?

Vulval squamous cell carcinoma appears to arise via 2 distinct pathways. A significant minority are associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and undifferentiated vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN). However, the majority arises in the absence of HPV, on a background of chronic inflammation. Until recently, it was assumed that lichen sclerosus was the underlying inflammatory condition in the majority of HPV-negative cancers. This pathway of carcinogenesis has been less well studied than the HPV pathway. Emerging evidence implicates differentiated VIN (DVIN), rather than lichen sclerosus, as the most likely precursor lesion in HPV-negative vulval squamous cell carcinoma. Here we discuss the clinical and molecular evidence that implicates DVIN as a lesion with a high malignant potential. This lesion is probably underdiagnosed and may be undertreated. Better recognition of DVIN by gynecologists and pathologists may therefore offer an opportunity to prevent some vulval cancers.

Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease radiotherapy is extended to additionally cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is proven. Therefore accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre- treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to January 2011). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS: We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced CT scan or MRI scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial which was at moderate risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.

Hormonal therapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is a cancer of the lining of the womb and worldwide is the seventh most common cancer in women. Treatment with hormones is thought to be beneficial in patients with endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the indications, effectiveness and safety of hormone therapy for advanced or recurrent epithelial endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE up to May 2009 and and CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2009). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied hormonal therapy in adult women diagnosed with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Comparisons were restricted to single-trial analyses so we did not synthesise data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found six trials (542 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of hormonal therapy in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer as a single agent, as part of combination therapy and as low versus high dose. All comparisons were restricted to single-trial analyses, where we found no evidence that hormonal therapy as a single agent or as a combination treatment prolonged overall or five-year disease-free survival of women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, low-dose hormonal therapy may have had a benefit in terms of overall and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to high-dose hormonal therapy (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.66 and HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.71 for overall and PFS, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence that hormonal treatment in any form, dose or as part of combination therapy improves the survival of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, a large number of patients would be needed to demonstrate an effect on survival and none of the included RCTs had a sufficient number of patients to demonstrate a significant difference. In the absence of a proven survival advantage and the heterogeneity of patient populations, the decision to use any type of hormonal therapy should be individualised and with the intent to palliate the disease. It is debatable whether outcomes such as quality of life, treatment response or palliative measures such as relieving symptoms should take preference over overall and PFS as the major objectives of future trials.