STUDY QUESTION. How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?SUMMARY ANSWER. Forty-eight recommendations w

Primary vaginal malignancies are rare, comprising only 2% of all female genital tract malignancies in adults and 4.5% in children. As part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with gynecological cancers across Europe, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPe) developed evidence-based guidelines in order to improve the management of patients with vaginal cancer within a multidisciplinary setting. ESTRO/ESGO/SIOPe nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in the management of vaginal cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, their national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (13 experts across Europe comprising the international development group). To ensure that the statements were evidence based, the current literature was reviewed and critically appraised.In the case of absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 112 independent international practitionners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives and their comments and input were incorporated and addressed accordingly. These guidelines cover comprehensively the diagnostic pathways as well as the surgical, radiotherapeutical and systemic management and follow-up of adult patients (including those with rare histological subtypes) and pediatric patients (vaginal rhabdomyosarcoma and germ cell tumours) with vaginal tumours.

(1) Background: There are limited data on the success of conservative treatment of high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) with imiquimod directly compared to standard of treatment with LLETZ. (2) Methods: Patients aged 18–40 with histological HSIL (with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN2p16+ and CIN3), were randomly assigned to treatment with imiquimod or LLETZ. The primary outcome was defined as the absence of HSIL after either treatment modality. The secondary outcomes were the occurrence of side effects. (3) Results: 52 patients were allocated in each group and were similar regarding baseline characteristics. In the imiquimod group, 82.7% of patients completed treatment, which was successful in 51.9%. All patients in the LLETZ group completed treatment, which was successful in 92.3% (p < 0.001). In the subgroup of CIN2p16+ patients, treatment with imiquimod was not inferior to LLETZ (73.9% vs. 84.2%, p = 0.477). During and after treatment, no cases of progression to cancer were observed. Side effects and severe side effects (local and systemic) were more prevalent in the imiquimod than in the LLETZ group (88.5% vs. 44.2% (p-value < 0.001) and 51.9% vs. 13.5% (p-value < 0.001), respectively). (4) Conclusion: Generally, in patients with HSIL, LLETZ remains the gold standard of treatment. However, in a subgroup analysis of patients with CIN2p16+, the success rate was comparable between the two treatment modalities. Due to the prevalence of side effects, the treatment compliance with imiquimod use may, however, present a clinically important issue.

The quality of pathological assessment is crucial for the safety of patients with cervical cancer if pelvic lymph node dissection is to be replaced by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. Central pathology review of SLN pathological ultrastaging was conducted in the prospective SENTIX/European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial (ENGOT)-CX2 study. All specimens from at least two patients per site were submitted for the central review. For cases with major or critical deviations, the sites were requested to submit all samples from all additional patients for second-round assessment. From the group of 300 patients, samples from 83 cases from 37 sites were reviewed in the first round. Minor, major, critical, and no deviations were identified in 28%, 19%, 14%, and 39% of cases, respectively. Samples from 26 patients were submitted for the second-round review, with only two major deviations found. In conclusion, a high rate of major or critical deviations was identified in the first round of the central pathology review (28% of samples). This reflects a substantial heterogeneity in current practice, despite trial protocol requirements. The importance of the central review conducted prospectively at the early phase of the trial is demonstrated by a substantial improvement of SLN ultrastaging quality in the second-round review.