Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus infection. Most human papillomavirus infection is harmless and clears spontaneously but persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (especially type 16) can cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, penis, and oropharynx. The virus exclusively infects epithelium and produces new viral particles only in fully mature epithelial cells. Human papillomavirus disrupts normal cell-cycle control, promoting uncontrolled cell division and the accumulation of genetic damage. Two effective prophylactic vaccines composed of human papillomavirus type 16 and 18, and human papillomavirus type 16, 18, 6, and 11 virus-like particles have been introduced in many developed countries as a primary prevention strategy. Human papillomavirus testing is clinically valuable for secondary prevention in triaging low-grade cytology and as a test of cure after treatment. More sensitive than cytology, primary screening by human papillomavirus testing could enable screening intervals to be extended. If these prevention strategies can be implemented in developing countries, many thousands of lives could be saved.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the commonest cause of gynaecological cancer-associated death. The disease typically presents in postmenopausal women, with a few months of abdominal pain and distension. Most women have advanced disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage III), for which the standard of care remains surgery and platinum-based cytotoxic chemotherapy. Although this treatment can be curative for most patients with early stage disease, most women with advanced disease will develop many episodes of recurrent disease with progressively shorter disease-free intervals. These episodes culminate in chemoresistance and ultimately bowel obstruction, the most frequent cause of death. For women whose disease continues to respond to platinum-based drugs, the disease can often be controlled for 5 years or more. Targeted treatments such as antiangiogenic drugs or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors offer potential for improved survival. The efficacy of screening, designed to detect the disease at an earlier and curable stage remains unproven, with key results expected in 2015.

The PORTEC-3 trial investigated the benefit of combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. We updated the analysis to investigate patterns of recurrence and did a post-hoc survival analysis. In the multicentre randomised phase 3 PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer were eligible if they had International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage I, endometrioid grade 3 cancer with deep myometrial invasion or lymphovascular space invasion, or both; stage II or III disease; or stage I–III disease with serous or clear cell histology; were aged 18 years and older; and had a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given intravenously during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 given intravenously), by use of a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. Secondary endpoints of vaginal, pelvic, and distant recurrence were analysed according to the first site of recurrence. Survival endpoints were analysed by intention-to-treat, and adjusted for stratification factors. Competing risk methods were used for failure-free survival and recurrence. We did a post-hoc analysis to analyse patterns of recurrence with 1 additional year of follow-up. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013; follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138. Between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were enrolled, of whom 660 were eligible and evaluable (330 in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 330 in the radiotherapy-alone group). At a median follow-up of 72·6 months (IQR 59·9–85·6), 5-year overall survival was 81·4% (95% CI 77·2–85·8) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·1% (71·6–80·9) with radiotherapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·51–0·97], p=0·034), and 5-year failure-free survival was 76·5% (95% CI 71·5–80·7) versus 69·1% (63·8–73·8; HR 0·70 [0·52–0·94], p=0·016). Distant metastases were the first site of recurrence in most patients with a relapse, occurring in 78 of 330 women (5-year probability 21·4%; 95% CI 17·3–26·3) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 98 of 330 (5-year probability 29·1%; 24·4–34·3) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55–0·99]; p=0·047). Isolated vaginal recurrence was the first site of recurrence in one patient (0·3%; 95% CI 0·0–2·1) in both groups (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·06–15·90]; p=0·99), and isolated pelvic recurrence was the first site of recurrence in three women (0·9% [95% CI 0·3–2·8]) in the chemoradiotherapy group versus four (0·9% [95% CI 0·3–2·8]) in the radiotherapy-alone group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·17–3·33]; p=0·71). At 5 years, only one grade 4 adverse event (ileus or obstruction) was reported (in the chemoradiotherapy group). At 5 years, reported grade 3 adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups, occurring in 16 (8%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus ten (5%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·24). The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (in four [2%] women in both groups). At 5 years, grade 2 or worse adverse events were reported in 76 (38%) of 201 women in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 43 (23%) of 187 in the radiotherapy-alone group (p=0·002). Sensory neuropathy persisted more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy alone, with 5-year rates of grade 2 or worse neuropathy of 6% (13 of 201 women) versus 0% (0 of 187). No treatment-related deaths were reported. This updated analysis shows significantly improved overall survival and failure-free survival with chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. This treatment schedule should be discussed and recommended, especially for women with stage III or serous cancers, or both, as part of shared decision making between doctors and patients. Follow-up is ongoing to evaluate long-term survival. Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

The international standard of care for women with suspected advanced ovarian cancer is surgical debulking followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to establish whether use of platinum-based primary chemotherapy followed by delayed surgery was an effective and safe alternative treatment regimen. In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) undertaken in 87 hospitals in the UK and New Zealand, we enrolled women with suspected stage III or IV ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned women (1:1) either to undergo primary surgery followed by six cycles of chemotherapy, or to three cycles of primary chemotherapy, then surgery, followed by three more cycles of completion chemotherapy. Each 3-week cycle consisted of carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or an alternative carboplatin combination regimen, or carboplatin monotherapy. We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a random element, and stratified participants according to the randomising centre, largest radiological tumour size, clinical stage, and prespecified chemotherapy regimen. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be less than 1·18. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN74802813, and is closed to new participants. Between March 1, 2004, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 552 women to treatment. Of the 550 women who were eligible, 276 were assigned to primary surgery and 274 to primary chemotherapy. All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary surgery and 253 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis. As of May 31, 2014, 451 deaths had occurred: 231 in the primary-surgery group versus 220 in the primary-chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 22·6 months in the primary-surgery group versus 24·1 months in primary chemotherapy. The HR for death was 0·87 in favour of primary chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0·98 (95% CI 0·72–1·05). Grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse events and deaths within 28 days after surgery were more common in the primary-surgery group than in the primary-chemotherapy group (60 [24%] of 252 women vs 30 [14%] of 209, p=0·0007, and 14 women [6%] vs 1 woman [<1%], p=0·001). The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse event was haemorrhage in both groups (8 women [3%] in the primary-surgery group vs 14 [6%] in the primary-chemotherapy group). 110 (49%) of 225 women receiving primary surgery and 102 (40%) of 253 receiving primary chemotherapy had a grade 3 or 4 chemotherapy related toxic effect (p=0·0654), mostly uncomplicated neutropenia (20% and 16%, respectively). One fatal toxic effect, neutropenic sepsis, occurred in the primary-chemotherapy group. In women with stage III or IV ovarian cancer, survival with primary chemotherapy is non-inferior to primary surgery. In this study population, giving primary chemotherapy before surgery is an acceptable standard of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

About 15% of patients with endometrial cancer have high-risk features and are at increased risk of distant metastases and endometrial cancer-related death. We designed the PORTEC-3 trial to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. PORTEC-3 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, international trial. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy) in 1·8 Gy fractions five times a week or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles concurrent cisplatin 50 mg/m2 and four adjuvant cycles of carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) using a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The primary endpoints of the PORTEC-3 trial were overall survival and failure-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis focuses on 2-year toxicity and health-related quality of life as secondary endpoints; analysis was done according to treatment received. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) the cervix cancer module and chemotherapy and neuropathy subscales of the ovarian cancer module at baseline, after radiotherapy and at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months after randomisation. Adverse events were graded with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual, and follow-up remains ongoing for the primary outcomes analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14387080, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138. Between Sept 15, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were randomly allocated in the PORTEC-3 trial. Of these, 660 met eligibility criteria, and 570 (86%) were evaluable for health-related quality of life. Median follow-up was 42·3 months (IQR 25·8–55·1). At completion of radiotherapy and at 6 months, EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales were significantly lower (worse functioning) and health-related quality of life symptom scores higher (worse symptoms) for the chemoradiotherapy group compared with radiotherapy alone, improving with time. At 12 and 24 months, global health or quality of life was similar between groups, whereas physical functioning scores remained slightly lower in patients who received chemoradiotherapy compared with patients who received radiotherapy alone. At 24 months, 48 (25%) of 194 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group reported severe tingling or numbness compared with 11 (6%) of 170 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001). Grade 2 or worse adverse events were found during treatment in 309 (94%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 145 (44%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group, and grade 3 or worse events were found in 198 (61%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 42 (13%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001), with most of the grade 3 adverse events being haematological (45%). At 12 and 24 months, no significant differences in grade 3 or worse adverse events were found between groups; only grade 2 or higher sensory neuropathy adverse events persisted at 24 months (25 [10%] of 240 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs one [<1%] of 247 patients in the radiotherapy alone group; p<0·0001). Despite the increased physician and patient-reported toxicities, this schedule of adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer is feasible, with rapid recovery after treatment, but with persistence of patient-reported sensory neurological symptoms in 25% of patients. We await the analysis of primary endpoints before final conclusions are made. Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176 464 women aged 20–64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1 214 415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40–0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46–1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25–0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15–0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 105 (1·1–12·1) and 8·7 per 105 (3·3–18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 105 (7·9–27·0) and 36·0 per 105 (23·2–53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14–0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49–1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30–34 years (0·36, 0·14–0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60–70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.

Aberrant DNA methylation is an important cancer hallmark, yet the dynamics of DNA methylation changes in human carcinogenesis remain largely unexplored. Moreover, the role of DNA methylation for prediction of clinical outcome is still uncertain and confined to specific cancers. Here we perform the most comprehensive study of DNA methylation changes throughout human carcinogenesis, analysing 27,578 CpGs in each of 1,475 samples, ranging from normal cells in advance of non-invasive neoplastic transformation to non-invasive and invasive cancers and metastatic tissue. We demonstrate that hypermethylation at stem cell PolyComb Group Target genes (PCGTs) occurs in cytologically normal cells three years in advance of the first morphological neoplastic changes, while hypomethylation occurs preferentially at CpGs which are heavily Methylated in Embryonic Stem Cells (MESCs) and increases significantly with cancer invasion in both the epithelial and stromal tumour compartments. In contrast to PCGT hypermethylation, MESC hypomethylation progresses significantly from primary to metastatic cancer and defines a poor prognostic signature in four different gynaecological cancers. Finally, we associate expression of TET enzymes, which are involved in active DNA demethylation, to MESC hypomethylation in cancer. These findings have major implications for cancer and embryonic stem cell biology and establish the importance of systemic DNA hypomethylation for predicting prognosis in a wide range of different cancers.

This study aimed to investigate whether molecular analysis can be used to refine risk assessment, direct adjuvant therapy, and identify actionable alterations in high-risk endometrial cancer. Trans PORTEC, an international consortium related to the PORTEC3 trial, was established for translational research in high-risk endometrial cancer. In this explorative study, routine molecular analyses were used to detect prognostic subgroups: p53 immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability and POLE proofreading mutation. Furthermore, DNA was analyzed for hotspot mutations in 13 additional genes ( BRAF , CDKNA2 , CTNNB1 , FBXW7 , FGFR2 , FGFR3 , FOXL2 , HRAS , KRAS , NRAS , PIK3CA , PPP2R1A , and PTEN ) and protein expression of ER, PR, PTEN, and ARID1a was analyzed. Rates of distant metastasis, recurrence-free, and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. In total, samples of 116 high-risk endometrial cancer patients were included: 86 endometrioid; 12 serous; and 18 clear cell. For endometrioid, serous, and clear cell cancers, 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 68%, 27%, and 50% ( P =0.014) and distant metastasis rates 23%, 64%, and 50% ( P =0.001), respectively. Four prognostic subgroups were identified: (1) a group of p53-mutant tumors; (2) microsatellite instable tumors; (3) POLE proofreading-mutant tumors; and (4) a group with no specific molecular profile (NSMP). In group 3 ( POLE- mutant; n =14) and group 2 (microsatellite instable; n =19) patients, no distant metastasis occurred, compared with 50% distant metastasis rate in group 1 (p53-mutant; n =36) and 39% in group 4 (NSMP; P <0.001). Five-year recurrence-free survival was 93% and 95% for group 3 ( POLE- mutant) and group 2 (microsatellite instable) vs 42% (group 1, p53-mutant) and 52% (group 4, NSMP; P <0.001). Targetable FBXW7 and FGFR2 mutations (6%), alterations in the PI3K-AKT pathway (60%) and hormone receptor positivity (45%) were frequently found. In conclusion, molecular analysis of high-risk endometrial cancer identifies four distinct prognostic subgroups, with potential therapeutic implications. High frequencies of targetable alterations were identified and may serve as targets for individualized treatment.

ObjectivesHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing in cervical screening offers the potential for self-sampling to improve uptake among non-attenders. High-risk (HR) HPV detection in urine shows promise, but few studies have examined its sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) detection compared with standard cervical samples. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to optimise conditions for urine testing for HPV detection; to determine concordance for HR-HPV detection in matched urine, vaginal and cervical samples; to compare the sensitivity of HR-HPV testing for the detection of CIN2+ in matched samples; and to determine the acceptability of urine testing for cervical screening.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSecondary care colposcopy clinic in North West England.ParticipantsWomen aged 25 years of age or older, attending colposcopy clinic for management of abnormal cervical screening results or a suspicious-looking cervix. In total, 104 women took part in the study. Triple matched samples were available for 79 and 66 women using Abbott RealTime (ART) and Roche Cobas 4800 (RC), respectively.InterventionSelf-collected urine and vaginal samples and practitioner-obtained cervical samples were tested for HR-HPV by ART and RC assays, including comparison of neat and preservative-fixed urine. Colposcopic opinion was recorded and directed cervical biopsies taken if clinically indicated. The acceptability of self-testing was evaluated by questionnaire.Primary outcome measureThe sensitivity of urine to detect underlying CIN2+.Secondary outcome measuresThe comparative sensitivity of vaginal and cervical samples to detect CIN2+; the acceptability of urine sampling.ResultsPreservative-fixed, but not neat urine, showed good concordance with vaginal samples for the detection of HR-HPV. The sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 15/18 (83%) for urine and 16/18 (89%) for cervical and vaginal samples by ART, and 15/17 (88%) for all samples by RC. Urine-based testing was broadly acceptable to women.ConclusionsUrinary HR-HPV detection offers an alternative strategy of cervical screening. Larger studies to determine its clinical utility are warranted.

The aim of this interim analysis of a large, international phase III study was to assess the efficacy of an AS04 adjuvanted L1 virus-like-particle prophylactic candidate vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 in young women. 18 644 women aged 15–25 years were randomly assigned to receive either HPV16/18 vaccine (n=9319) or hepatitis A vaccine (n=9325) at 0, 1, and 6 months. Of these women, 88 were excluded because of high-grade cytology and 31 for missing cytology results. Thus, 9258 women received the HPV16/18 vaccine and 9267 received the control vaccine in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy, which included women who had prevalent oncogenic HPV infections, often with several HPV types, as well as low-grade cytological abnormalities at study entry and who received at least one vaccine dose. We assessed cervical cytology and subsequent biopsy for 14 oncogenic HPV types by PCR. The primary endpoint—vaccine efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18—was assessed in women who were seronegative and DNA negative for the corresponding vaccine type at baseline (month 0) and allowed inclusion of lesions with several oncogenic HPV types. This interim event-defined analysis was triggered when at least 23 cases of CIN2+ with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA in the lesion were detected in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, number NCT00122681. Mean length of follow-up for women in the primary analysis for efficacy at the time of the interim analysis was 14·8 (SD 4·9) months. Two cases of CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA were seen in the HPV16/18 vaccine group; 21 were recorded in the control group. Of the 23 cases, 14 (two in the HPV16/18 vaccine group, 12 in the control group) contained several oncogenic HPV types. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ containing HPV16/18 DNA was 90·4% (97·9% CI 53·4–99·3; p<0·0001). No clinically meaningful differences were noted in safety outcomes between the study groups. The adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine showed prophylactic efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 and thus could be used for cervical cancer prevention.