Remi A. Nout

OBJECTIVE To investigate differences in standard clinico-radiological evaluation versus Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for reporting survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiation and brachytherapy. METHODS Between November 2017 and March 2020, patients recruited in cervical cancer trials were identified. MRI at diagnosis and at least one follow-up imaging was mandatory. Disease-free survival and progression-free survival were determined using standard evaluation (clinical examination and symptom-directed imaging) and RECIST 1.1. Agreement between criteria was estimated using κ value. Sensitivity analysis was done to test the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RECIST 1.1 in detecting response to treatment. RESULTS Sixty-nine eligible patients had at least one target lesion. Thirty-three patients (47.8%) had pathological lymph nodes. Of these 33 patients, RECIST 1.1 classified only 18% (6/33) as ‘target nodal lesions’ and the remaining nodes as ‘non-target’. There were 6 (8.7%) and 8 (11.6%) patients with disease events using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation, respectively. The disease-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 was 94.2%, 91.2%, 91.2%, and with standard evaluation was 94.2%, 89.7%, and 88.2%, respectively (p=0.58). Whereas, progression-free survival at 12, 18, and 24 months using RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation were same (94.2%, 91.2%, and 91.2%, respectively). The κ value was 0.84, showing strong agreement in assessing disease-free survival, although an absolute difference of 3% between endpoint assessment methodologies. RECIST 1.1 had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 34.91% to 96.81%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 94.13% to 100%), and accuracy of 97.1% (95% CI 89.92% to 99.65%). CONCLUSIONS The study showed 1.5% and 3% difference in disease-free survival at 18 and 24 months and no difference in progression-free survival between RECIST 1.1 and standard evaluation in a patient cohort with low event rate.

Aim: To investigate and compare overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity of women who underwent either chemoradiotherapy with or without prior lymph node debulking or upfront chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy and hyperthermia (triple therapy) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) to identify a potential role for triple therapy. Methods: Women with histologically proven LACC and with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2 and IIA2 to IVA were included. Cox regression analyses were used for calculating hazard ratios and to adjust for confounding variables. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the influence of covariates on toxicity. Results: A total of 370 patients were included of whom 58% (n = 213) received chemoradiotherapy (CRT), 18% (n = 66) received node-debulking followed by chemoradiotherapy (LND-CRT) and 25% (n = 91) received triple therapy (TT). Five-year OS was comparable between the three treatment groups, with 53% (95% confidence interval 46–59%) in the CRT group, 45% (33–56%) in the LND-CRT group and 53% (40–64%) in the TT group (p = 0.472). In the adjusted analysis, 5-year OS and DFS were comparable between the three treatment groups. No chemotherapy-related differences in toxicity were observed. Conclusion: This study suggests that the toxicity and survival of TT is similar to CRT or LND-CRT.

Primary vaginal malignancies are rare, comprising only 2% of all female genital tract malignancies in adults and 4.5% in children. As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPe) developed evidence-based guidelines in order to improve the management of patients with vaginal cancer within a multidisciplinary setting. ESTRO/ESGO/SIOPe nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in the management of vaginal cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, their national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (13 experts across Europe comprising the international development group). To ensure that the statements were evidence based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised.In the case of absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 112 independent international practitionners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives and their comments and input were incorporated and addressed accordingly. These guidelines cover comprehensively the diagnostic pathways as well as the surgical, radiotherapeutical and systemic management and follow-up of adult patients (including those with rare histological subtypes) and pediatric patients (vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma and germ cell tumours) with vaginal tumours.

(1) Background: The introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has led to improvement in local recurrence (LR) outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of preoperative external beam radiotherapy to TME reduces LR to less than 6%. As a trade-off to these gradual improvements in local therapies, the oncology community’s work is now focusing on mitigating treatment-related toxicities. In other words, if a small proportion of 4–6% of rectal cancer patients benefit from additional local therapy beyond TME, the burden of acute and long-term side effects must be considered with care. (2) Methods: With the introduction of better-quality imaging for tumor visualization and treatment planning, a new conformed radiation treatment was introduced with high-dose-rate endorectal brachytherapy. The treatment concept was tested in phase I and II studies: first in the pre-operative setting, and then as a boost after external beam radiation therapy, as a dose-escalation study, to achieve higher local tumor control. (3) Results: HDREBT is safe and effective in achieving a high tumor regression rate and was well tolerated in a phase II multicenter and two matched-pair studies. (4) Conclusions: HDREBT is a conformed radiation therapy that is safe and effective, and is presently explored in a phase III dose-escalation study in the NOM of patients with operable rectal cancer.