OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) in predicting disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) among surgically treated patients with vulvar carcinoma. The secondary aim is to evaluate its impact as a predictor of the pattern of recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of patients that underwent surgical treatment for vulvar cancer from 1998 to 2016. ACCI at the time of primary surgery was evaluated and patients were classified as low (ACCI 0–1), intermediate (ACCI 2–3), and high risk (>3). DFS, OS and CSS were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meir and the Cox proportional hazard models. Logistic regression model was used to assess predictors of distant and local recurrence. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in the study. Twelve were classified as low, 36 as intermediate, and 30 as high risk according to their ACCI. Using multivariate analysis, ACCI class was an independent predictor of worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.54–5.99; p < 0.001), OS (HR=5.25; 95% CI=1.63–16.89; p=0.005) and CSS (HR=3.79; 95% CI=1.13–12.78; p=0.03). Positive nodal status (odds ratio=8.46; 95% CI=2.13–33.58; p=0.002) was the only parameter correlated with distant recurrence at logistic regression. CONCLUSION: ACCI could be a useful tool in predicting prognosis in surgically treated vulvar cancer patients. Prospective multicenter trials assessing the role of ACCI in vulvar cancer patients are warranted.
Aged ; Comorbidity* ; Disease-Free Survival ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Multicenter Studies as Topic ; Multivariate Analysis ; Prognosis ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prospective Studies ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Vulvar Neoplasms*

Objective: To investigate current evidence on oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes of patients with stage I cervical cancer of 4 cm or larger undergoing fertility-sparing surgery (FSS). Methods: Systematic review of studies including women affected by stage I cervical cancer ≥4 cm who underwent FSS. Main outcome measures: disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), pregnancy rate, live birth rate, premature delivery rate. Results: Fifteen studies met all eligibility criteria for this systematic review, involving 48 patients affected by cervical cancer ≥4 cm who completed FSS. Three patients (6.3%) experienced a recurrence and one of them (2.1%) died of disease. The 5-year DFS rate was 92.4%. The 5-year OS rate was 97.6%. A significantly shorter 5-year DFS was reported for high-risk patients (G3, non-squamous histotype, diameter ≥5 cm) compared with low-risk (74.7% vs. 100%; log-rank test, p=0.024). Data about fertility outcomes were available for 12 patients. Five patients out of 12 (41.7%) attempted to conceive with an estimated pregnancy rate of 80%, a live birth rate of 83.3% and a premature delivery rate of 20%. Conclusion Women with high tumor grade, aggressive histology and tumor size ≥5 cm have a higher risk of recurrence. Oncologic outcomes are encouraging among low-risk patients; however, the lack of high-quality studies makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Prospective multicentric clinical trials with a proper selection of inclusion/exclusion criteria should be conducted in women with low-risk factors, strong desire to preserve their fertility and high likelihood to conceive.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) at the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC). Methods: Systematic literature review of studies including AEOC patients undergoing SyLND versus selective lymph node dissection (SeLND) or no lymph node dissection (NoLND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and hospital stay. Results: Nine retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1,660 patients: 827 (49.8%) SyLND, 490 (29.5%) SeLND, and 343 (20.7%) NoLND. The pooled estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were, respectively, 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.65–1.20; p=0.43) and 0.80 (95% CI=0.50–1.30; p=0.37). The pooled estimated odds ratios (ORs) for severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, and blood transfusions were, respectively, 1.83 (95% CI=1.19–2.82; p=0.006), 3.38 (95% CI=1.71–6.70; p<0.001), 7.23 (95% CI=3.40–15.36; p<0.0001), and 1.22 (95% CI=0.50–2.96; p=0.67). Conclusion Despite the heterogeneity in the study designs, SyLND after NACT failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in PFS and OS and resulted in a higher risk of severe postoperative complications.

Objective: Early iatrogenic menopause in gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation (BRCAm) carriers undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is a major health concern. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective remedy, but remains underused in clinical practice. The Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) group promoted a national survey to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals regarding the prescription of HRT. Methods: The survey consisted of a self-administered, multiple-choice 45-item questionnaire, available online to all MITO members for 2 months starting from January 2022. Results: A total of 61 participants completed the questionnaire (47 out of 180 MITO centers;compliance: 26.1%). Most respondents were female (73.8%), younger than 50 years (65.6%), and gynecologic oncologists (55.7%), working in public general hospitals (49.2%). An 84.4% of specialists actively discuss HRT with patients and 51.0% of patients ask the specialist for an opinion on HRT. The rate of specialists globally in favor of prescribing HRT was 22.9% for ovarian cancer, 49.1% for cervical cancer, and 8.2% for endometrial cancer patients. Most respondents (70.5%) believe HRT is safe for BRCA-mutated patients after RRSO. Nearly 70% of physicians prescribe systemic HRT, while 23.8% prefer local HRT. Most specialists recommend HRT for as long as there is a benefit and generally for up to 5 years. Conclusion Real-world data suggest that many healthcare professionals still do not easily prescribe HRT for gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation carriers after RRSO.Further efforts are required to implement the use of HRT in clinical practice and to support both clinicians in recommending HRT and patients in accepting it.

Objective: Early iatrogenic menopause in gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation (BRCAm) carriers undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is a major health concern. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective remedy, but remains underused in clinical practice. The Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) group promoted a national survey to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals regarding the prescription of HRT. Methods: The survey consisted of a self-administered, multiple-choice 45-item questionnaire, available online to all MITO members for 2 months starting from January 2022. Results: A total of 61 participants completed the questionnaire (47 out of 180 MITO centers;compliance: 26.1%). Most respondents were female (73.8%), younger than 50 years (65.6%), and gynecologic oncologists (55.7%), working in public general hospitals (49.2%). An 84.4% of specialists actively discuss HRT with patients and 51.0% of patients ask the specialist for an opinion on HRT. The rate of specialists globally in favor of prescribing HRT was 22.9% for ovarian cancer, 49.1% for cervical cancer, and 8.2% for endometrial cancer patients. Most respondents (70.5%) believe HRT is safe for BRCA-mutated patients after RRSO. Nearly 70% of physicians prescribe systemic HRT, while 23.8% prefer local HRT. Most specialists recommend HRT for as long as there is a benefit and generally for up to 5 years. Conclusion Real-world data suggest that many healthcare professionals still do not easily prescribe HRT for gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation carriers after RRSO.Further efforts are required to implement the use of HRT in clinical practice and to support both clinicians in recommending HRT and patients in accepting it.

Objective: Early iatrogenic menopause in gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation (BRCAm) carriers undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is a major health concern. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is the most effective remedy, but remains underused in clinical practice. The Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer and gynecologic malignancies (MITO) group promoted a national survey to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals regarding the prescription of HRT. Methods: The survey consisted of a self-administered, multiple-choice 45-item questionnaire, available online to all MITO members for 2 months starting from January 2022. Results: A total of 61 participants completed the questionnaire (47 out of 180 MITO centers;compliance: 26.1%). Most respondents were female (73.8%), younger than 50 years (65.6%), and gynecologic oncologists (55.7%), working in public general hospitals (49.2%). An 84.4% of specialists actively discuss HRT with patients and 51.0% of patients ask the specialist for an opinion on HRT. The rate of specialists globally in favor of prescribing HRT was 22.9% for ovarian cancer, 49.1% for cervical cancer, and 8.2% for endometrial cancer patients. Most respondents (70.5%) believe HRT is safe for BRCA-mutated patients after RRSO. Nearly 70% of physicians prescribe systemic HRT, while 23.8% prefer local HRT. Most specialists recommend HRT for as long as there is a benefit and generally for up to 5 years. Conclusion Real-world data suggest that many healthcare professionals still do not easily prescribe HRT for gynecological cancer survivors and BRCA mutation carriers after RRSO.Further efforts are required to implement the use of HRT in clinical practice and to support both clinicians in recommending HRT and patients in accepting it.