Despite remarkable advances in the knowledge of molecular biology and treatment, ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. In the last decade, there have been important advances both in systemic and surgical treatment. However, there is no doubt that the incorporation of PARP inhibitors as maintenance after the response to platinum-based chemotherapy, first in recurrent disease and recently also in first line, will change the natural history of the disease.The objective of this guide is to summarize the current evidence for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of ovarian cancer, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

Long-term survivors of gynecological cancers may be cured but still have ongoing health concerns and long-term side effects following cancer treatment. The aim of this brainstorming meeting was to develop recommendations for long-term follow-up for survivors from gynecologic cancer. International experts, representing each member group within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), met to define long-term survival, propose guidelines for long term follow-up and propose ways to implement long term survivorship follow-up in clinical trials involving gynecological cancers. Long-term survival with/from gynecological cancers was defined as survival of at least five years from diagnosis, irrespective of disease recurrences. Review of the literature showed that more than 50% of cancer survivors with gynecological cancer still experienced health concerns/long-term side effects. Main side effects included neurologic symptoms, sleep disturbance, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, bowel and urinary problems and lymphedema. In this article, long-term side effects are discussed in detail and treatment options are proposed. Screening for second primary cancers and lifestyle counselling (nutrition, physical activity, mental health) may improve quality of life and overall health status, as well as prevent cardiovascular events. Clinical trials should address cancer survivorship and report patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for cancer survivors. Long-term survivors after gynecological cancer have unique longer term challenges that need to be addressed systematically by care givers. Follow-up after completing treatment for primary gynecological cancer should be offered lifelong. Survivorship care plans may help to summarize cancer history, long-term side effects and to give information on health promotion and prevention.

PURPOSE: To evaluate atezolizumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) followed by maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: The multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III ENGOT-OV41/GEICO 69-O/ANITA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03598270 ) enrolled patients with measurable high-grade serous, endometrioid, or undifferentiated recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one or two previous CT lines (most recent including platinum) and had a treatment-free interval since last platinum (TFIp) of >6 months. Patients were stratified by investigator-selected carboplatin doublet, TFIp, BRCA status, and PD-L1 status in de novo biopsy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab or placebo throughout standard therapy comprising six cycles of a carboplatin doublet followed (in patients with response/stable disease) by maintenance niraparib until progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 417 patients were randomly assigned (15% BRCA- mutated, 36% PD-L1–positive, 66% TFIp >12 months, 11% previous poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor after frontline CT, and 53% previous bevacizumab). Median follow-up was 28.6 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 30.5 months). Atezolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10]; P = .28). Median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 12.1 months) with atezolizumab versus 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.2 months) with standard therapy. Subgroup analyses generally showed consistent results, including analyses by PD-L1 status. The objective response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI, 39 to 52) with atezolizumab and 43% (95% CI, 36 to 49) with standard therapy. The safety profile was as expected from previous experience of these drugs. CONCLUSION: Combining atezolizumab with CT and maintenance niraparib for late-relapsing recurrent ovarian cancer did not significantly improve PFS or the ORR.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the second most common gynecological malignancy worldwide, the first in developed countries [Sung et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249, 2021]. Although a majority is diagnosed at an early stage with a low risk of relapse, an important proportion of patients will relapse. Better knowledge of molecular abnormalities is crucial to identify high-risk groups in early stages as well as for recurrent or metastatic disease for whom adjuvant treatment must be personalized. The objective of this guide is to summarize the current evidence for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of EC, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are a subset of epithelial ovarian tumors with low malignant potential but significant risk of relapse (10% to 30%). Unfortunately, surgical prognostic factors for BOT relapse have not been clearly identified, probably due to the use of heterogeneous surgical definitions and limited follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess potential relapse risk factors using standard surgical definitions and long follow-up.

Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) endometrial cancer (EC) is an inflamed phenotype with poor outcomes when meeting high-risk criteria and limited treatment options in the adjuvant setting. We report protocol-prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with dMMR tumors from the phase III ENGOT-en11/GOG-3053/KEYNOTE-B21 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04634877 ) in newly diagnosed, high-risk EC after surgery with curative intent. Patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo (six cycles) plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (four to six cycles) once every 3 weeks, then pembrolizumab 400 mg or placebo once every 6 weeks (six cycles), respectively. MMR status was a stratification factor. Patients received radiotherapy at investigator discretion. Investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) was a primary end point. No formal hypothesis testing was performed for subgroup analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 141 patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 140 in the placebo arm had dMMR tumors. At this interim analysis, hazard ratio for DFS favored pembrolizumab (0.31 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.69]); median DFS was not reached in either group. Two-year DFS rates were 92.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 96.4) and 80.2% (95% CI, 70.8 to 86.9), respectively. No new safety signals occurred. Longer-term follow-up of outcomes will be evaluated at final analysis. Preplanned subgroup analysis on the basis of the study's stratification factors suggests that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improves DFS and is clinically relevant for patients with dMMR tumors in the curative-intent setting.