1,721,014 research outputs found
Optimal outcomes in gynae-oncology require honest and respectful conversations: Between ourselves and with our patients.
No full textSimple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer.
No full textRationale: Radical hysterectomy is a standard operation for women with early-stage cervical cancer, involving removal of the womb, cervix (neck of the womb), surrounding tissues (parametrial tissue), and part of the vagina. Given a relatively low risk of parametrial involvement in a selected group of women with early-stage cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy (removing only the uterus and cervix) with pelvic lymphadenectomy (surgical removal of the lymph glands found in the pelvis) might be an alternative option to reduce risk of complications.
Objectives: To determine the benefits and harms of simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer.
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and two trial registry databases, along with reference checking and citation searching. The last search date was 19 March 2025.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised clinical trials comparing simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for women with cervical cancer FIGO 2019 stage IA2-IB1.
Outcomes: Critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), cancer-related mortality, and disease-free survival (DFS). Important outcomes included cancer recurrence, adverse events, sexual dysfunction, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life (QoL).
Risk of bias: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool.
Synthesis methods: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
Included studies: We included two trials involving 740 participants. One small trial was conducted in Brazil (40 participants). The larger trial, involving 700 participants, included centres in Western Europe, South Korea, and Canada. In this larger trial, 75.0% of participants were white. We classified one report as awaiting classification, and did not identify any ongoing studies.
Synthesis of results: Critical outcomes Low-certainty evidence revealed that simple hysterectomy may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.89; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 740 participants), OS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.28; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 740 participants), and DFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.11; I2 = 53%, 2 studies, 740 participants) compared to radical hysterectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of simple hysterectomy on cancer-related mortality (RR 3.64, 95% CI 0.61 to 21.92; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 740 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes Low-certainty evidence showed that simple hysterectomy may result in little or no difference regarding the rate of cancer recurrence compared to radical hysterectomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.35; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 740 participants). Simple hysterectomy likely reduces the rate of adverse events compared to radical hysterectomy (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 740 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sexual function and QoL outcomes appeared to be more favourable for women undergoing simple hysterectomy at some time points. Additionally, simple hysterectomy was the dominant strategy in terms of cost-effective assessment. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence primarily due to some concerns about risk in one included study, and due to imprecision of the pooled results.
Authors' conclusions: Simple hysterectomy may be a viable option for carefully selected women with early-stage cervical cancer, as it may result in little to no differences in survival and cancer recurrence rates compared to radical hysterectomy. Additionally, there were likely fewer perioperative adverse events and there may be better short-term QoL and sexual function in women undergoing simple hysterectomy. The included studies did not directly compare the effect of the route of surgery (open versus minimal access). This review has a limited representation of non-white women and women from low-resource settings
Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcaemic type causing an acute kidney injury.
No full textSummaryWe report a case of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcaemic type, a rare and aggressive form of ovarian cancer, causing an acute kidney injury. A woman in her mid-30s presented with a large pelvic mass and abdominal distention, this was associated with rapidly deteriorating renal function, which did not improve with standardised kidney injury treatment. There was a high suspicion of ovarian cancer. She deteriorated and underwent emergency cytoreductive surgery, followed by systemic chemotherapy. Her presentation, acute kidney injury and electrolyte disturbance preoperatively and postoperatively suggest this was caused by her cancer. Renal dysfunction, due to paraneoplastic syndromes, is a rare oncological emergency seen with solid tumours. Awareness of the condition can lead to early recognition and timely management
Lymphadenectomy or sentinel node biopsy for the management of endometrial cancer
No full textRationale: Endometrial cancer, which affects the lining of the uterus, is the most common form of uterine cancer (96%), and the sixth most common cancer in females worldwide, accounting for 4.5% of all cancers in females. In 2022, there were 420,242 cases of uterine cancer and 97,704 deaths from the disease worldwide. Most women have early-stage endometrial cancer at diagnosis. Traditionally, surgical staging included removal of all lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) in the pelvis (pelvic lymphadenectomy) with or without para-aortic areas (pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy), to determine the need for further treatment. However, rates of lymph node involvement are relatively low and may be predicted by uterine histopathology and molecular markers. Lymphadenectomy carries a significant risk of long-term morbidity from lymphoedema and previous studies comparing pelvic lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy found no survival benefit. Detecting the first draining lymph node(s) from each side of the uterus, called sentinel lymph node biopsy, can replace lymphadenectomy in terms of accuracy of detecting nodes, but no studies have shown whether sentinel lymph node biopsy is beneficial to women, despite its wide use.
Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy for the management of endometrial cancer comparing different head-to-head comparisons in a network meta-analysis allowing ranking of treatment strategies.
Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP for studies up to 22 March 2024.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with early-stage endometrial cancer, comparing combinations of no lymphadenectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy. We excluded non-randomised studies and studies assessing diagnostic test accuracy of lymph node sampling.
Outcomes: Overall survival; progression-free survival; morbidity and mortality related to surgery; early and late adverse events, including lymphoedema and lymphocyst formation; and quality of life.
Risk of bias: We used RoB 2 to assess risk of bias.
Synthesis methods: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event data and risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) for other outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to summarise the certainty of evidence. We intended to compare treatments in a network meta-analysis.
Included studies: We included five RCTs (one remains ongoing) with 2074 women. Studies were conducted in the UK, South Africa, Poland, New Zealand, Chile, Italy, Egypt and Brazil, and published between 2008 and 2023. Another 10 studies are ongoing. Three studies (1955 participants) compared no lymphadenectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy, one study (50 participants) compared no lymphadenectomy with pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy, and one study (69 participants - ongoing) compared sentinel lymph node biopsy with pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy.
Synthesis of results: No lymphadenectomy versus pelvic lymphadenectomy No lymphadenectomy probably results in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.10; 2 studies, 1922 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and improves progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96; 2 studies, 1922 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy. No lymphadenectomy may reduce early adverse effects from direct surgical morbidity slightly (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.71; 3 studies, 1955 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduces early adverse effects due to surgically related systemic morbidity (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.93; 3 studies, 1955 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No lymphadenectomy probably results in a large reduction in lymphoedema (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.26; 3 studies, 1955 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely reduces lymphocyst formation (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.91; 1 study, 1403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no quality of life data. Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy One study shared unpublished data and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sentinel lymph node biopsy on overall survival, progression-free survival, early adverse events, lymphocyst formation and quality of life at 12 months. Sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy probably reduces the development of lymphoedema (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97; 1 study, 69 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No lymphadenectomy versus pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy One study closed after the recruitment of 50 participants due to slow uptake, and we were unable to extract data for use in the meta-analysis. Because of this, we were unable to form a linked network for meta-analysis. Other comparisons Studies of other comparisons are ongoing or results are yet to be published.
Authors' conclusions: Data suggest 'less is probably more' in terms of surgical staging for women with presumed endometrial cancer, as no lymphadenectomy is favoured over pelvic lymphadenectomy in terms of important outcomes, with overall moderate certainty. Preliminary results for sentinel lymph node biopsy versus pelvic/para-aortic lymphadenectomy have a similar direction of effect, but the evidence is very uncertain. Data from several studies are ongoing. However, given the weight of evidence that supports no lymphadenectomy over lymphadenectomy, our ability to make adjuvant treatment decisions based on uterine factors, and the advent of molecular profiling, it is disappointing that only one study compared no lymphadenectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy, potentially putting many women at continued risk of short- and significant long-term consequences of extensive lymphadenectomy
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy for initial treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
No full textRationale: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require a combination of surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.
Objectives: To assess the advantages and disadvantages of treating women with advanced EOC with chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows cytoreductive surgery (primary cytoreductive surgery (PCRS)).
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 21 March 2024. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers for further studies. We contacted the principal investigators of relevant trials for further information.
Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.
Outcomes: We extracted data on overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events, surgically related mortality and morbidity, and quality of life outcomes.
Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias in RCTs.
Synthesis methods: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models (due to heterogeneity between studies) to calculate hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
Included studies: We identified a further 1022 titles and abstracts through our searches in this update (958 unique records after further de-duplication), adding to the 2227 titles and abstracts identified in previous versions of this review. A total of five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. We identified no new completed studies in this update, but we did include additional data from existing studies. The studies assessed a total of 1774 women with stage III/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICRS) or PCRS followed by chemotherapy. We included data from four studies in the meta-analyses (1692 participants).
Synthesis of results: Survival We found little or no difference between groups in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.08; P = 0.49; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; high-certainty evidence) and likely little or no difference between groups in PFS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events, surgical morbidity, and quality of life outcomes were variably and incompletely reported across studies. NACT reduces postoperative mortality (0.4% in the NACT group versus 3.3% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.52; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1542 women; high-certainty evidence). There are probably clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PCRS in overall surgically related adverse effects (grade 3+ (G3+)) (6% in the NACT group versus 29% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 435 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Organ resection NACT probably results in a large reduction in the need for stoma formation (5.8% in the NACT group versus 20.4% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; P = 0.009; I2 = 70%; 2 studies; 632 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces the risk of needing bowel resection at the time of surgery (13.0% in the NACT group versus 26.6% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81; P = 0.007; I2 = 84%; 4 studies; 1578 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life Global quality of life on the EORTC QLQ-C30 produced imprecise results in three studies, with high levels of heterogeneity (quality of life at six months: MD 6.62, 95% CI -2.89 to 16.13; P = 0.17; I2 = 92%; 3 studies; 559 women; low-certainty evidence). Overall, functional and symptom scores may be slightly improved for NACT at 6 months, but similar by 12 months, although the differences might not be clinically meaningful.
Authors' conclusions: The available high- to moderate-certainty evidence shows there is likely little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PCRS and NACT for those with advanced EOC who are suitable for either treatment option. NACT reduces the risk of postoperative mortality and likely reduces the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for stoma formation. These data should inform women and clinicians (involving specialist gynaecological multidisciplinary teams) and allow treatment to be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage, and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited
Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in older patients.
No full text© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of European Society of Gynaecological Oncology and the International Gynecologic Cancer Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)Objective: We aimed to analyze management and survival outcomes of older patients (≥75 years) with stage ≥II epithelial ovarian cancer across gynecological cancer centers in the United Kingdom.
Methods: Retrospective cohort study performed using the IMPRESS project data set. Clinical information for patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer from 6 sites of varying size and population demographics was collated between January 2018 and December 2019. We compared treatment of patients aged ≥75 years with those <75, within and between centers, using multivariate analysis to understand effects on outcomes.
Results: After exclusions, we assessed 721 patients for overall survival and 702 for progression-free survival. Patients aged ≥75 years had poorer performance status and more comorbidities. Older patients were less likely to receive combination treatment with surgery and chemotherapy (in either order) (overall = 392/721 (54.4%); <75 cohort = 320/495 (64.6%); ≥75 cohort = 72/226 (31.9%), p < .0001). Treatment varied between sites, with some having no active treatment rates of 49% for patients aged ≥75 years. Older patients had twice the relative risk of death (relative risk 1.98, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.39, p < .001). Adjustment for confounders individually caused only a relatively modest reduction in magnitude and strength of association. Adjustment for treatment led to this association essentially disappearing (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38, 99% reduction in χ2), though with significant variation in association between age and overall survival between treatment groups (p-heterogeneity = .0004).
Conclusions: Older women may do as well as younger women in terms of survival if treated similarly, although this varies depending on treatment groups. Treatments varied between and within sites, with some sites treating older women differently than others
Management of unscheduled bleeding on HRT: A joint guideline on behalf of the British Menopause Society, Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and Getting it Right First Time.
No full textUnscheduled bleeding on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can affect up to 40% of users. In parallel with the increase in HRT prescribing in the UK, there has been an associated increase in referrals to the urgent suspicion of cancer pathway for unscheduled bleeding. On behalf of the British Menopause Society (BMS) an expert review panel was established, including primary and secondary care clinicians with expertise in the management of menopause, with representatives from key related organisations, including the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, Royal College of General Practitioners and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, and service development partners from NHS England and GIRFT (Getting it Right First Time). For each topic, a focused literature review was completed to develop evidence led recommendations, where available, which were ratified by consensus review within the panel and by guideline groups
Implementing recommendations for routine mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing of endometrial cancer and subsequent patient management
No full textLynch syndrome is associated with an increased risk of cancer, including endometrial cancer. We audited the introduction of a nurse-led testing and management pathway for Lynch syndrome. All 191 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer at Somerset NHS Foundation Trust between January 2022 and December 2023 were tested for mis-match repair (MMR) protein immunohistochemistry; germline testing was offered to all 13 who were eligible. Seven patients were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome; all were referred for bowel screening and Helicobacter pylori testing. Information about prophylactic aspirin recommendations was missing for 3/7 patients. We established an effective, nurse-led Lynch syndrome testing pathway, in line with national guidelines
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
