(1) Background: Currently, an increasing number of women postpone pregnancy beyond the age of 35. Gynecological cancers affect a significant proportion of women of reproductive age, necessitating the development of fertility preservation methods to fulfill family planning. Consequently, providing treatment options that preserve fertility in women diagnosed with gynecological cancers has become a crucial component of care for survivors. (2) Methods: We conducted an extensive search of relevant scientific publications in PubMed and Embase databases and performed a narrative review, including high-quality peer-reviewed research on fertility after being treated for gynecologic cancers, reporting pregnancy rates, birth rates, and pregnancy outcomes in cancer survivors as well as therapeutic options which partially preserve fertility and methods for obtaining a pregnancy in survivors. (3) Discussion: The medicine practiced today is focused on both treating the neoplasm and preserving the quality of life of the patients, with fertility preservation being an important element of this quality. This leads to an improved quality of life, allowing these women to become mothers even in the seemingly adverse circumstances posed by such a pathology. However, although there are guidelines on female fertility preservation in the context of neoplasms, an analysis shows that physicians do not routinely consider it and do not discuss these options with their patients. (4) Conclusions: Advancements in medicine have led to a better understanding and management of gynecological neoplasms, resulting in increased survival rates. Once the battle against these neoplasms is won, the issue of preserving the quality of life for these women arises, with fertility preservation being an important aspect for women who have not yet fulfilled their family planning desires at the time of diagnosis. It is important for patients to be informed about the available options for fertility preservation and to be encouraged to make informed decisions in collaboration with their medical team. Standardized recommendations for onco-fertility into guidelines should be taken into consideration in the future.

(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review combined with a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (12,081 patients), evaluating overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 toxic effects, type, and number of all adverse effects. (3) Results: The analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64–0.78; I² = 77%; p < 0.00001) in first-line (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78–0.93; p = 0.0003) or recurrent cancer (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56–0.70; p < 0.00001) and regardless of the type of anti-angiogenesis drug used (Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, VEGF-receptors (VEGF-R) inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90–0.99; p = 0.03). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent neoplasms, both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant neoplasms. Grade ≥ 3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/hemorrhagic events, and gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound-related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4) Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there are little-to-no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions, a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.

The aim of our study is to present the particularities of a specific subset of gynecological cancer patients in Romania. We present a review of synchronous gynecological neoplasia (SGN) treated in the Bucharest Oncological Institute’s surgery departments over a decade. Between 2012 and 2022, 7419 female patients with genital malignancies were treated. We identified 36 patients with invasive synchronous primary gynecological cancers (0.5%) and 12 cases with one primary gynecological and another primary invasive pelvic cancer (rectal/bladder). All recurrent, metastatic, or metachronous tumors detected were excluded. Demographic data, personal history, presenting symptoms, pathologic findings, staging, treatment, and evolution for each case were recorded. Usually, the most common SGN association is between ovarian and endometrial cancer of endometrioid differentiation (low-grade malignancies with very good prognosis). However, we noticed that, given the particularities of the Romanian medical system, the most frequent association is between cervical and endometrial, followed by cervical and ovarian cancers. Moreover, the cancer stage at diagnosis is more advanced. In countries with low HPV vaccination rate and low adherence to screening programs, SGNs can present as extremely advanced cases and require extensive surgery (such as pelvic exenterations) to achieve radicality. This multimodal treatment in advanced cases with high tumor burden determines a reduction in survival, time until progression, and quality of life.

(1)Background: Among new anti-angiogenetic agents being developed and everchanging guidelines indications, the question of benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2)Methods: we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials (15487 patients), evaluating overall survival – OS, progression free survival– PFS and toxicity (grade ≥3 adverse effects, type and number of all adverse effects. (3)Results: analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.66–0.78, I2 = 77%, P<0.00001) regardless of treatment settings (first-line - HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.77-0.90, P<0.00001, recurrent cancer – HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.54-0.68, P<0.00001 or maintenance – HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.67-1.00, P=0.04) and type of anti-angiogenetic drug used (VEGF inhibitors, VEGF-R inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.91–0.99, P=0.02). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant cancers. Grade≥3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/ hemorrhagic events, gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4)Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there is little to no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.

Background: Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is an extremely rare form of sarcoma representing less than 1% of all soft-tissue sarcomas. It has morphological, structural, and immunohistochemical similarities to malignant melanoma, affecting young adults and equally affecting both sexes, and is usually located in the tendinous sheaths and aponeuroses of the limbs. Gastrointestinal localization is exceptional, with less than 100 cases reported thus far. The gene fusion of activating transcription factor 1 (ATF1) and the Ewing sarcoma breakpoint region 1 (EWSR1) are pathognomonic for clear cell sarcoma, representing the key to the diagnosis. CCS is an extremely aggressive tumor, with >30% having distant or lymphatic metastasis at the time of diagnostic, and it has a high recurrence rate of over 80% in the first year after diagnosis and a high tendency for metastatic dissemination. Given the rarity of this tumor, there is no standardized treatment. Early diagnosis and radical surgery are essential in the treatment of CCS both for the primary tumor and for recurrence or metastasis. Chemo-radiotherapy has very little effect and is rarely indicated, and the role of targeted therapies is still under investigation. Case presentation: We present an extremely rare case of intestinal CSS in a 44-year-old Caucasian female. The patient, asymptomatic, first presented for a routine checkup and was diagnosed with mild iron-deficiency anemia. Given her family history of multiple digestive cancers, additional investigations were requested (gastroscopy, colonoscopy, tumoral markers and imaging) and the results were all within normal limits. In the subsequent period, the patient experienced mild diffuse recurrent abdominal pain, which occurred every 2–3 months. Two years later, the patient presented with symptoms of intestinal obstruction and underwent an emergency laparotomy followed by segmental enterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy for stenotic tumor of the jejunum. Histology, immunohistochemistry, and genetic testing established the diagnosis of CCS. No adjuvant therapy was indicated. Initially, no signs of recurrence or metastasis were detected, but after 30 and 46 months, respectively, from the primary treatment, the patient developed liver metastasis and pericolic peritoneal implants treated by atypical hepatic resections and right hemicolectomy. The patient remains under observation.