The age‐standardised incidence of cervical cancer in Europe varies widely by country (between 3 and 25/100000 women‐years) in 2018. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage is low in countries with the highest incidence and screening performance is heterogeneous among European countries. A broad group of delegates of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations endorse the principles of the WHO call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, also in Europe. All European nations should, by 2030, reach at least 90% HPV vaccine coverage among girls by the age of 15 years and also boys, if cost‐effective; they should introduce organised population‐based HPV‐based screening and achieve 70% of screening coverage in the target age group, providing also HPV testing on self‐samples for nonscreened or underscreened women; and to manage 90% of screen‐positive women. To guide member states, a group of scientific professional societies and cancer organisations engage to assist in the rollout of a series of concerted evidence‐based actions. European health authorities are requested to mandate a group of experts to develop the third edition of European Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Cervical Cancer prevention based on integrated HPV vaccination and screening and to monitor the progress towards the elimination goal. The occurrence of the COVID‐19 pandemic, having interrupted prevention activities temporarily, should not deviate stakeholders from this ambition. In the immediate postepidemic phase, health professionals should focus on high‐risk women and adhere to cost‐effective policies including self‐sampling.

To evaluate the Turkey's nationwide HPV DNA screening program on the basis of first 1 million screened women. Women over age 30 were invited for population based screening via HPV DNA and conventional cytology. Samples were collected by family physicians and the evaluations and reports had been performed in the National Central HPV laboratories. The acceptance rate for HPV based cervical cancer screening after first invitation was nearly 36.5%. Since HPV DNA tests have been implemented, cervical cancer screening rates have shown 4–5‐fold increase in primary level. Through the evaluation of all, HPV positivity was seen in 3.5%. The commonest HPV genotypes were 16, followed by 51, 31, 52 and 18. Among the 37.515 HPV positive cases, cytological abnormality rate was 19.1%. Among HPV positive cases, 16.962 cases had HPV 16 or 18 or other oncogenic HPV types with abnormal cytology (>ASC‐US). These patients were referred to colposcopy. The colposcopy referral rate was 1.6%. Among these, final clinico‐pathological data of 3.499 patients were normal in 1.985 patients, CIN1 in 708, CIN2 in 285, CIN3 in 436 and cancer in 85 patients and only pap‐smear program could miss 45.9% of ≥CIN3 cases. The results of 1 million women including the evaluation of 13 HPV genotypes with respect to prevalence, geographic distribution and abnormal cytology results shows that HPV DNA can be used in primary level settings to have a high coverage rated screening program and is very effective compared to conventional pap‐smear.

Background: The impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on European gynaecological cancer patients under active treatment or follow‐up has not been documented. We sought to capture the patient perceptions of the COVID‐19 implications and the worldwide imposed treatment modifications.Methods: A patient survey was conducted in 16 European countries, using a new COVID‐19‐related questionnaire, developed by ENGAGe and the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale questionnaire (HADS). The survey was promoted by national patient advocacy groups and charitable organisations.Findings: We collected 1388 forms; 592 online and 796 hard‐copy (May, 2020). We excluded 137 due to missing data. Median patients’ age was 55 years (range: 18–89), 54.7% had ovarian cancer and 15.5% were preoperative. Even though 73.2% of patients named cancer as a risk factor for COVID‐19, only 17.5% were more afraid of COVID‐19 than their cancer condition, with advanced age (>70 years) as the only significant risk factor for that. Overall, 71% were concerned about cancer progression if their treatment/follow‐up was cancelled/postponed. Most patients (64%) had their care continued as planned, but 72.3% (n = 892) said that they received no information around overall COVID‐19 infection rates of patients and staff, testing or measures taken in their treating hospital. Mean HADS Anxiety and Depression Scores were 8.8 (range: 5.3–12) and 8.1 (range: 3.8–13.4), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified high HADS‐depression scores, having experienced modifications of care due to the pandemic and concern about not being able to visit their doctor as independent predictors of patients’ anxiety.Interpretation: Gynaecological cancer patients expressed significant anxiety about progression of their disease due to modifications of care related to the COVID‐19 pandemic and wished to pursue their treatment as planned despite the associated risks. Healthcare professionals should take this into consideration when making decisions that impact patients care in times of crisis and to develop initiatives to improve patients’ communication and education.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the European College for the Study of Vulval Disease (ECSVD), and the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) developed consensus statements on pre-invasive vulvar lesions in order to improve the quality of care for patients with vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN). The management of VaIN varies according to the grade of the lesion: VaIN 1 (low grade vaginal squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL)) can be subjected to follow-up, while VaIN 2–3 (high-grade vaginal SIL) should be treated. Treatment needs individualization according to the patient’s characteristics, disease extension and previous therapeutic procedures. Surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment and should be performed if invasion cannot be excluded. Total vaginectomy is used only in highly selected cases of extensive and persistent disease. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser may be used as both an ablation method and an excisional one. Reported cure rates after laser excision and laser ablation are similar. Topical agents are useful for persistent, multifocal lesions or for patients who cannot undergo surgical treatment. Imiquimod was associated with the lowest recurrence rate, highest human papillomavirus (HPV) clearance, and can be considered the best topical approach. Trichloroacetic acid and 5-fluorouracil are historical options and should be discouraged. For VaIN after hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3, laser vaporization and topical agents are not the best options, since they cannot reach epithelium buried in the vaginal scar. In these cases surgical options are preferable. Brachytherapy has a high overall success rate but due to late side effects should be reserved for poor surgical candidates, having multifocal disease, and with failed prior treatments. VaIN tends to recur and ensuring patient adherence to close follow-up visits is of the utmost importance. The first evaluation should be performed at 6 months with cytology and an HPV test during 2 years and annually thereafter. The implementation of vaccination against HPV infection is expected to contribute to the prevention of VaIN and thus cancer of the vagina. The effects of treatment can have an impact on quality of life and result in psychological and psychosexual issues which should be addressed. Patients with VaIN need clear and up-to-date information on a range of treatment options including risks and benefits, as well as the need for follow-up and the risk of recurrence.

Introduction Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in gynecologic oncology, with the majority of published reports originating from a small number of specialized centers. It is unclear to what degree ERAS is implemented in hospitals globally. This international survey investigated the status of ERAS protocol implementation in open gynecologic oncology surgery to provide a worldwide perspective on peri-operative practice patterns. Methods Requests to participate in an online survey of ERAS practices were distributed via social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Social Link). The survey was active between January 15 and March 15, 2020. Additionally, four national gynecologic oncology societies agreed to distribute the study among their members. Respondents were requested to answer a 17-item questionnaire about their ERAS practice preferences in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods. Results Data from 454 respondents representing 62 countries were analyzed. Overall, 37% reported that ERAS was implemented at their institution. The regional distribution was: Europe 61%, Americas 53%, Asia 30%, and Africa 17%. ERAS gynecologic oncology guidelines were well adhered to (>80%) in the domains of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, early removal of urinary catheter after surgery, and early introduction of ambulation. Areas with poor adherence to the guidelines included the use of bowel preparation, adoption of modern fasting guidelines, carbohydrate loading, use of nasogastric tubes and peritoneal drains, intra-operative temperature monitoring, and early feeding. Conclusion This international survey of ERAS in open gynecologic oncology surgery shows that, while some practices are consistent with guideline recommendations, many practices contradict the established evidence. Efforts are required to decrease the variation in peri-operative care that exists in order to improve clinical outcomes for patients with gynecologic cancer globally.