Selection of patients with malignant melanoma for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) using CT-PET

OBJECTIVES

In melanoma patients with positive pelvic nodes, pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to achieve fully resected disease status facilitates adjuvant-dose systemic therapy and avoids higher treatment doses with greater toxicity. This study aimed to test the accuracy of prediction of nodal involvement of the 2010 joint BAPRAS/BAD guidance compared with Positron Emission Tomography (CT-PET).

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of 26 melanoma patients undergoing PLND by a single surgeon between July 2012 and July 2020. The indications for performing PLND were in accordance with the 2010 guidance, but this was supplemented by CT-PET in 16/26 patients.

RESULTS

Of the 26 patients undergoing PLND, 10 underwent surgery based upon the 2010 criteria alone and 16 underwent supplementary CT-PET. 17 patients had positive nodes on histology; of these, 13 had a positive CT-PET. Amongst node-negative patients, only one had a false positive CT-PET. CT-PET was 100% sensitive for pelvic nodal disease and 75% specific, with a positive predictive value for nodal involvement of 92%. Of the 10 patients who underwent PLND without CT-PET, only 4 had positive nodes while 6 patients had negative nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2010 guidelines remain broad and contributed to negative PLND in a third of our patients (9/26). Hence, the indications for performing PLND need to be revisited. Our series supports PET-CT as being 100% sensitive in the identification of pelvic nodal disease and 75% specific. We recommend that a positive PET-CT should be considered as the primary indication for PLND in melanoma patients.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial.

METHODS

ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146.

FINDINGS

Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response.

INTERPRETATION

The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Chemotherapy for metastatic and recurrent 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. A woman's risk of developing cervical cancer by 65 years of age ranges from 0.69% in developed countries to 1.38% in developing countries. Although screening by Pap smear should mean early detection at a curable stage for most women, many still present with advanced or metastatic disease with a worse prognosis. The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy has improved outcome compared to radiotherapy alone; however, 30% to 50% fail to respond to treatment or develop recurrent disease. There are no standard treatment options for these patients, although platinum-based chemotherapy is frequently used and trials are on-going.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different types and combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2012). The reference lists from these and those of review articles were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving chemotherapy for metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer. Trials involving radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, intra-arterial chemotherapy, biological agents or immunomodulators were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion and data extraction and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no data comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy. Cisplatin-based regimens are the most widely used and therefore we have concentrated on these trials. In terms of response rates some non-platinum regimens are equivalent but toxicity is higher. The most common cisplatin regimen was 50 mg/m(2) day 1 q21days. Higher doses had similar survivals. There was no direct comparison between single-agent cisplatin and carboplatin. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not adequately reported and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were incompletely documented. Combination regimens were more toxic than single agents, but in the limited reported data this did not appear to adversely affect QoL.No significant difference in response rate by site of recurrence was found, although there was a trend towards improved response when the main site of disease was beyond the previously irradiated pelvis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination cisplatin-based chemotherapy could be a viable option for patients of good performance status with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, but further trials that report adequate survival and QoL data are sought. Response rates and improvements in survival are low. Cisplatin-based combinations have significant toxicity. Outcomes are poor and novel cytotoxic/biological agents and optimal scheduling need further investigation. Future trials need to stratify for and perform planned subgroup analysis with respect to previous treatment and site of recurrence.

Writing to referring doctors after a new patient consultation. What is wanted and what was contained in letters from one medical oncologist?

BACKGROUND

There are no Australasian data on the preferred information content of letters from consultant physicians to referring doctors.

AIMS

To survey referring general practitioners (GPs) and specialists concerning their preferences for letters from a consultant physician after a new patient consultation to include different categories of information. To investigate the information content of letters written by one medical oncologist to referring doctors after a new patient consultation and contrast with that of individualised letters written to patients.

METHODS

Fifty-five referring GPs and 53 specialists were sent a questionnaire seeking their views on the information content of letters from consultant physicians. Ninety-four letters after a new patient consultation were selected at random and analysed for their information content, and compared with 182 individualised letters sent to patients.

RESULTS

Referring doctors wanted letters to contain details of diagnosis, clinical findings, test results and recommended future tests, treatment options, side effects and prognosis. Letters to referring doctors contained 19 items of information (range 8-33), while letters to patients contained a mean of 5.6 'salient' points (range 5-7). Both letters almost always stated the diagnosis, the presenting history and recommended treatment. Letters to patients more commonly presented information about prognosis, further tests, and explanation of symptoms than letters to doctors. In contrast, letters to referring doctors contained more information concerning the past medical, family, and drug history, clinical findings and test results.

CONCLUSIONS

Letters sent by a consultant oncologist are not well tailored to the information needs of the referring clinician. Summary letters sent to patients may be modified to include information required by referring doctors.