Esten Nakken

Dr. Esten Nakken


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 March 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KLKristina Lindemann
Kristina Lindemann
ESElisabeth Smogeli
Elisabeth Smogeli
MSMilada Cvancarova Småstuen
Milada Cvancarova Småstuen
KBKjersti Bruheim
Kjersti Bruheim
JTJone Trovik
Jone Trovik
ENEsten Nakken
Esten Nakken
(1) Background: This study evaluated the clinical outcome after salvage radiotherapy for first pelvic relapse after endometrial cancer (EC). (2) Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included EC patients with first central pelvic relapse without lymph node involvement treated with curative intent. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method and possible predictive factors for risk of relapse and mortality were identified using the Cox model. (3) Results: We included 139 patients with median EQD2 (Equivalent Dose in 2 Gy fractions) to the clinical target volume of 70.0 Gy. During follow up of median 6.66 years, 39.6% patients developed a second relapse. Risk group classification at primary diagnosis based on histology, grading and FIGO stage and how the pelvic tumor boost was administered were independently associated with PFS and OS. Five-year OS was 68% (95% CI (59–75)) for the whole cohort. Five-year OS was 88% (95% CI (75–94)), 72% (95% CI (55–84)) and 38% (95% CI (15–60)) for the stage I low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The majority of central pelvic recurrences in RT-naive EC women can be successfully salvaged with radiotherapy. However, survival in patients with high-risk disease remains poor and warrants a more individualized approach to optimize outcome.

11 February 2022 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MGMarkus Glatzer
Markus Glatzer
KTKari Tanderup
Kari Tanderup
Ángeles RovirosaÁngeles Rovirosa
Ángeles Rovirosa
LFLars Fokdal
Lars Fokdal
COClaudia Ordeanu
Claudia Ordeanu
NTNikolaos Tselis
Nikolaos Tselis
Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1–2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74–84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 × 7 Gy or 4 × 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 × 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1–2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic.