The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) developed and established for the first time in 2016, and updated in 2020, quality indicators for advanced ovarian cancer surgery to audit and improve clinical practice in Europe and beyond. As a sequela of the continuous effort to improve oncologic care in patients with ovarian cancer, ESGO issued in 2018 a consensus guidance jointly with the European Society of Medical Oncology addressing in a multidisciplinary fashion 20 selected key questions in the management of ovarian cancer, ranging from molecular pathology to palliation in primary and relapse disease. In order to complement the above achievements and consolidate the promoted systemic advances and surgical expertise with adequate peri-operative management, ESGO developed, as the next step, clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of peri-operative care and management of complications as part of its mission to improve the quality of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer and reduce iatrogenic morbidity. To do so, ESGO nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of ovarian cancer (18 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence based, the literature published since 2015, identified from a systematic search, was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 117 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

Do different chemotherapy drugs exert the same magnitude of cytotoxicity on dormant primordial follicles and the growing follicle fraction in the ovary in vivo and on mitotic non-luteinized and non-mitotic luteinized granulosa cells in vitro? Cyclophosphamide (alkylating agent) and cisplatin (alkylating like) impacted both primordial and pre-antral/antral follicles and both mitotic and non-mitotic granulosa cells, whereas the anti-metabolite cancer drug gemcitabine was detrimental only to pre-antral/antral follicles and mitotic non-luteinized granulosa cells. It is already known that anti-metabolite cancer drugs are less detrimental to the ovary than alkylating and alkylating like agents, such as cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. This assumption is largely based on the results of clinical reports showing lower rates of amenorrhea in women receiving anti-metabolite agent-based regimens compared with those treated with the protocols containing an alkylating drug or a platinum compound. But a quantitative comparison of gonadotoxicity with a histomorphometric proof of evidence has not been available for many chemotherapy drugs. Therefore, we combined in this study in vivo and in vitro models of human and rat origin that allows a comparative analysis of the impact of different chemotherapy agents on the ovary and granulosa cells using real-time quantitative cell indices, histomorphometry, steroidogenesis assays, and DNA damage and cell death/viability markers. We also aimed to investigate if there is a difference between mitotic and non-mitotic granulosa cells in terms of their sensitivity to the cytotoxic actions of chemotherapy drugs with different mechanisms of action. This issue has not been addressed previously. This translational research study involved in vivo analyses of ovaries in rats and in vitro analyses of granulosa cells of human and rat origin. For the in vivo assays, 54 4- to 6-week old Sprague-Dawley young female rats were randomly allocated into four groups of 13 to receive a single IP injection of: saline (control), gemcitabine (200 mg/kg), cisplatin (50 mg/kg) or cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg). The animals were euthanized 72 h later. Follicle counts and serum AMH levels were compared between the groups. In vitro cytotoxicity studies were performed using mitotic non-luteinized rat (SIGC) and human (COV434, HGrC1) granulosa cells, and non-mitotic luteinized human (HLGC) granulosa cells. The cells were plated at a density of 5000 cells/well using DMEM-F12 culture media supplemented with 10% FBS. Chemotherapy agents were used at their therapeutic blood concentrations. The growth of mitotic granulosa cells was monitored real-time using xCelligence system. Live/dead cell and apoptosis assays were also carried out using intravital Yo-Pro-1 staining and cleaved caspase-3 expression, respectively. Estradiol (E2), progesterone (P) and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels were assayed with ELISA. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin caused massive atresia of both primordials and growing follicles in the rat ovary whereas gemcitabine impacted pre-antral/antral follicles only. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin induced apoptosis of both mitotic non-luteinized and non-mitotic luteinized granulosa cells in vitro. By contrast, cytotoxicity of gemcitabine was confined to mitotic non-luteinized granulosa cells. This study tested only three chemotherapeutic agents. The experimental methodology described here could be applied to other drugs for detailed analysis of their ovarian cytotoxicity. These findings indicate that in vivo and in vitro cytotoxic actions of chemotherapy drugs on the ovarian follicles and granulosa cells vary depending upon the their mechanism of action and the nature of the granulosa cells. The School of Medicine and the Graduate School of Health Sciences of Koc University, and American Hospital Women's Health Center, Comprehensive Cancer Care and Fertility Preservation Programs, Istanbul Turkey. All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Purpose: To explore whether patients with BRCA1/2-mutated or homologous recombination deficient (HRD) ovarian cancers benefitted from atezolizumab in the phase III IMagyn050 (NCT03038100) trial. Patients and Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer were randomized to either atezolizumab or placebo with standard chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status of tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) was determined centrally (VENTANA SP142 assay). Genomic alterations, including deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations, genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI), were evaluated using the FoundationOne assay. HRD was defined as gLOH ≥ 16%, regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. Potential associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and genomic biomarkers were evaluated using standard correlation analyses and log-rank of Kaplan–Meier estimates. Results: Among biomarker-evaluable samples, 22% (234/1,050) harbored BRCA1/2 mutations and 46% (446/980) were HRD. Median TMB was low irrespective of BRCA1/2 or HRD. Only 3% (29/1,024) had TMB ≥10 mut/Mb, and 0.3% (3/1,022) were MSI-high. PFS was better in BRCA2-mutated versus BRCA2–non-mutated tumors and in HRD versus proficient tumors. PD-L1 positivity (≥1% expression on ICs) was associated with HRD but not BRCA1/2 mutations. PFS was not improved by adding atezolizumab in BRCA2-mutated or HRD tumors; there was a trend toward enhanced PFS with atezolizumab in BRCA1-mutated tumors. Conclusions: Most ovarian tumors have low TMB despite BRCA1/2 mutations or HRD. Neither BRCA1/2 mutation nor HRD predicted enhanced benefit from atezolizumab. This is the first randomized double-blind trial in ovarian cancer demonstrating that genomic instability triggered by BRCA1/2 mutation or HRD is not associated with improved sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors. See related commentary by Al-Rawi et al., p. 1645

Background Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer. To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice. Methods Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives. Results Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes. Discussion Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer.