Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesDespite the individualized starting dose for maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer, the niraparib dose reduction rate remains high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of niraparib dose reduction on progression-free survival in newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian cancer and recurrent ovarian cancer patients. We also aimed to compare the reduction rates and the safety of niraparib on primary and relapse groups, and identify which factors may predict dose reduction.MethodsPatients with primary or recurrent ovarian cancer in maintenance who received niraparib between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Niraparib dosing was based on individualized starting dose of 300 or 200 mg/day. The impact of niraparib dose reductions was focused on patients treated with 200 or 100 mg in both groups. Reduction rates, adverse events and predictive factors of reduction were assessed in each study group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in primary and relapse groups; the secondary endpoints were the reduction rates, the safety and tolerability of niraparib in both groups.ResultsOf 215 patients identified, 124 (57.7%) primary and 91 (42.3%) recurrent ovarian cancer patients were included. The majority of patients started niraparib at 200 mg/day (92.7% primary and 80.2% relapse group); dose reductions from 300 or 200 mg/day to 200 or 100 mg/day occurred more frequently within cycles 1–3 (67% primary and 45% relapse group, p=0.001). Grade≥3 adverse events were lower in the relapse group (54.8% primary and 35.1% relapse, p=0.001). In both groups, dose modifications over the treatment did not significantly impair median progression-free survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that weight and platinum-doublets were possible risk factors for dose reduction.ConclusionsNiraparib dose reduction occurs in almost half of patients within cycles 1–3, although it is significantly more common in the first-line setting. Survival outcomes seem not to be impaired by dose reduction.

Introduction/BackgroundCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide and almost 50% of cases are diagnosed in women younger than 35 years old. According to international guidelines, fertility sparing treatment in young patients is evaluated in early-stage disease with tumors <4 cm, negative nodes and non-aggressive histological subtype. Glassy cell cervical carcinoma (GCCC) is an extremely rare poorly differentiated carcinoma, characterized by aggressive behavior and poor prognosis and with no indication of fertility sparing approach. We reported our experience with GCCC with focus on conservative treatment.MethodologyWe collected clinical data, survival analysis, relapse rates of patients with diagnosis of GCCC from two institutes between 2000 and 2021.ResultsA total of twentyone cases were identified and collected, regardless of the stage. Median age was 48 years old (range 29–67). According to the 2009 FIGO staging system most patients had a stage IIB (8, 38%). Radical hysterectomy was performed in 12 cases (57%) and adjuvant treatment was proposed based on pathological risk factors. Nine patients (43%) underwent neoadjuvant treatment. Relapse was reported in six (28%) patients with a median time of 6 months (range 1–21) and 62% (13) died of disease. After counseling two nulliparous young patients with FIGO stage Ib1 opted for fertility sparing approach. Both of them had pregnancy during follow-up time. One patient performed cerclage due to cervical insufficiency at 13 weeks and had a vaginal delivery at 37 weeks. The other one decided for a cesarean section after 37 weeks. Obstetrics outcome was excellent. Currently, the patients have no evidence of disease.ConclusionGCCC is a very aggressive histological subtype with poor outcome. Radical hysterectomy is the standard of care in an early stage due at the unfavorable prognosis. For our experience fertility sparing surgery may be considered as an option for well selected patients.DisclosuresNothing to declare.

Fumarate hydratase (FH) deficiency is a rare, yet impactful metabolic disorder caused by mutations in the FH gene, affecting the Krebs cycle, leading to the accumulation of fumarate and pseudohypoxic states. This metabolic shift promotes cell signaling alterations that can drive tumorigenesis, as heterozygous germline mutations in the FH gene, resulting in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma (HLRCC) syndrome. FH-deficient uterine leiomyomas show peculiar histological features that may lead to misdiagnosis STUMP (smooth muscle tumor of uncertain malignant potential) and uLMS (uterine leiomyosarcoma). Definitive diagnosis involves clinical evaluation, imaging, and histopathological examination, with immunohistochemistry for FH protein being a key diagnostic tool. Management of FH-deficient leiomyomas may involve conventional treatments like surgery and hormonal therapy but also requires careful monitoring and genetic counseling for associated malignancies. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a promising treatment option for fibroids, although long-term efficacy remains a concern also because of its inability to obtain tissue for a pathological diagnosis. Fumarate hydratase deficiency (FHD) represents a significant challenge in gynecologic oncology due to its association with an increased risk of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of studies demonstrating the potential role of FH deficiency in increased risk of leiomyosarcomatosus transformation. Early detection, genetic screening, and personalized treatment approaches are critical for improving patient outcomes. The aim of this review is to develop a narrative overview of the implications of FHD in gynecological diseases and its correlation with cancer risk. For the first time, this review offers an overview of the necessity for studies to address the possible correlation between FH deficiency and the risk of developing leiomyosarcoma, focusing on new perspectives that can be explored in the field of better FH deficiency knowledge and cancer risk.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common type of cancer in women worldwide. It is associated with a high death rate, despite the fact that it is a nearly 100% preventable disease because of very effective primary and secondary preventive strategies. Advanced and recurrent disease is uncurable with a high relapse risk and the second-line therapies are limited with modest response rates and short durability. Investigating alternative mechanisms of action is crucial because of the high request for effective new therapies. Tisotumab vedotin (TV) is the first antibody-drug conjugated to target a cell surface-expressed tissue factor, and preliminary data in patients with metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer have been promising. In addition, the trials showed a favorable tolerability profile, with limited incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events. According to the data of ENGOT-cx6/GOG-3023/innovaTV 204, the US Food and Drug Administration granted expedited approval of TV on September 20, 2021, for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Actually, two other trials testing TV alone or in combination with other agents are ongoing. ENGOT-cx8/GOG-3024/innovaTV 205 is a Phase Ib/II trial of TV in combination with platinum or bevacizumab or pembrolizumab, in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have not received prior systemic therapy or who have progressed after no more than two prior systemic therapies. ENGOT-cx12/GOG-3057/InnovaTV 301 is a Phase 3 trial of TV vs investigator's choice chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer who had received no more than 2 prior chemotherapy lines. The outcomes of these two trials will potentially confirm and reinforce the use of TV as a new standard of care in advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. Keywords: cervical cancer, gynecological cancer, antibody-drug conjugate, tissue factor

Despite the individualized starting dose for maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer, the niraparib dose reduction rate remains high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of niraparib dose reduction on progression-free survival in newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian cancer and recurrent ovarian cancer patients. We also aimed to compare the reduction rates and the safety of niraparib on primary and relapse groups, and identify which factors may predict dose reduction. Patients with primary or recurrent ovarian cancer in maintenance who received niraparib between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Niraparib dosing was based on individualized starting dose of 300 or 200 mg/day. The impact of niraparib dose reductions was focused on patients treated with 200 or 100 mg in both groups. Reduction rates, adverse events and predictive factors of reduction were assessed in each study group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in primary and relapse groups; the secondary endpoints were the reduction rates, the safety and tolerability of niraparib in both groups. Of 215 patients identified, 124 (57.7%) primary and 91 (42.3%) recurrent ovarian cancer patients were included. The majority of patients started niraparib at 200 mg/day (92.7% primary and 80.2% relapse group); dose reductions from 300 or 200 mg/day to 200 or 100 mg/day occurred more frequently within cycles 1-3 (67% primary and 45% relapse group, p=0.001). Grade≥3 adverse events were lower in the relapse group (54.8% primary and 35.1% relapse, p=0.001). In both groups, dose modifications over the treatment did not significantly impair median progression-free survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that weight and platinum-doublets were possible risk factors for dose reduction. Niraparib dose reduction occurs in almost half of patients within cycles 1-3, although it is significantly more common in the first-line setting. Survival outcomes seem not to be impaired by dose reduction.

Despite the individualized starting dose for maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer, the niraparib dose reduction rate remains high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of niraparib dose reduction on progression-free survival in newly diagnosed primary advanced ovarian cancer and recurrent ovarian cancer patients. We also aimed to compare the reduction rates and the safety of niraparib on primary and relapse groups, and identify which factors may predict dose reduction. Patients with primary or recurrent ovarian cancer in maintenance who received niraparib between 2019 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Niraparib dosing was based on individualized starting dose of 300 or 200 mg/day. The impact of niraparib dose reductions was focused on patients treated with 200 or 100 mg in both groups. Reduction rates, adverse events and predictive factors of reduction were assessed in each study group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in primary and relapse groups; the secondary endpoints were the reduction rates, the safety and tolerability of niraparib in both groups. Of 215 patients identified, 124 (57.7%) primary and 91 (42.3%) recurrent ovarian cancer patients were included. The majority of patients started niraparib at 200 mg/day (92.7% primary and 80.2% relapse group); dose reductions from 300 or 200 mg/day to 200 or 100 mg/day occurred more frequently within cycles 1-3 (67% primary and 45% relapse group, p=0.001). Grade≥3 adverse events were lower in the relapse group (54.8% primary and 35.1% relapse, p=0.001). In both groups, dose modifications over the treatment did not significantly impair median progression-free survival. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that weight and platinum-doublets were possible risk factors for dose reduction. Niraparib dose reduction occurs in almost half of patients within cycles 1-3, although it is significantly more common in the first-line setting. Survival outcomes seem not to be impaired by dose reduction.