Sarah Kitson

Dr. Sarah Kitson

Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2017 in European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SSSudha Sundar
Sudha Sundar
JBJanos Balega
Janos Balega
ECEmma Crosbie
Emma Crosbie
ADAlasdair Drake
Alasdair Drake
RERichard Edmondson
Richard Edmondson
AWAxel Walther
Axel Walther
The British Gynaecological Cancer Society has issued the first Endometrial (Uterine) Cancer guidelines as recommendation for practice for the UK.

1 March 2024 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HBHolly Baker-Rand
Holly Baker-Rand
SKSarah Kitson
Sarah Kitson
Endometrial cancer is the sixth commonest cancer in women worldwide, with over 417,000 diagnoses in 2020. The disease incidence has increased by 132% over the last 30 years and is set to continue to rise in response to an ageing population and increasing global rates of obesity and diabetes. A greater understanding of the mechanisms driving endometrial carcinogenesis has led to the identification of potential strategies for primary disease prevention, although prospective evaluation of their efficacy within clinical trials is still awaited. The early diagnosis of endometrial cancer is associated with improved survival, but has historically relied on invasive endometrial sampling. New, minimally invasive tests using protein and DNA biomarkers and cytology have the potential to transform diagnostic pathways and to allow for the surveillance of high-risk populations. The molecular classification of endometrial cancers has been shown to not only have a prognostic impact, but also to have therapeutic value and is increasingly used to guide adjuvant treatment decisions. Advanced and recurrent disease management has also been revolutionised by increasing the use of debulking surgery and targeted treatments, particularly immunotherapy. This review summarises the recent advances in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of endometrial cancer and seeks to identify areas for future research.

1 November 2016 in Gynecologic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
YWY. Louise Wan
Y. Louise Wan
RBRachel Beverley-Stevenson
Rachel Beverley-Stevenson
DCDaloni Carlisle
Daloni Carlisle
SCSinead Clarke
Sinead Clarke
RERichard Edmondson
Richard Edmondson
ECEmma Crosbie
Emma Crosbie
Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecological cancer in developed nations and its incidence is rising. As a direct consequence, more women are dying from EC despite advances in care and improved survivorship. There is a lack of research activity and funding, as well as public awareness about EC. We sought to engage patients, carers and healthcare professionals to identify the most important unanswered research questions in EC. The priority setting methodology was developed by the James Lind Alliance and involved four key stages: gathering research questions; checking these against existing evidence; interim prioritisation; and a final consensus meeting during which the top ten unanswered research questions were agreed using modified nominal group methodology. Our first online survey yielded 786 individual submissions from 413 respondents, of whom 211 were EC survivors or carers, and from which 202 unique unanswered research questions were generated. 253 individuals, including 108 EC survivors and carers, completed an online interim prioritisation survey. The resulting top 30 questions were ranked in a final consensus meeting. Our top ten spanned the breadth of patient experience of this disease and included developing personalised risk scoring, refining criteria for specialist referral, understanding the underlying biology of different types of EC, developing novel personalised treatment and prevention strategies, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, increasing public awareness and interventions for psychological issues. Having established the top ten unanswered research questions in EC, we hope this galvanises researchers, healthcare professionals and the public to collaborate, coordinate and invest in research to improve the lives of women affected by EC.

17 September 2020 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NRNeil Ryan
Neil Ryan
RMRaymond McMahon
Raymond McMahon
STSimon Tobi
Simon Tobi
TSTristan Snowsill
Tristan Snowsill
SEShona Esquibel
Shona Esquibel
ECEmma Crosbie
Emma Crosbie
Lynch syndrome (LS) predisposes to endometrial cancer (EC), colorectal cancer, and other cancers through inherited pathogenic variants affecting mismatch-repair (MMR) genes. Diagnosing LS in women with EC can reduce subsequent cancer mortality through colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin chemoprevention; it also enables cascade testing of relatives. A growing consensus supports LS screening in EC; however, the expected proportion of test positives, and optimal testing strategy is uncertain. Previous studies from insurance-based healthcare systems were limited by narrow selection criteria, failure to apply reference standard tests consistently, and poor conversion to definitive testing. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of LS and the diagnostic accuracy of LS testing strategies in an unselected EC population. This was a prospective cross-sectional study carried out at a large United Kingdom gynaecological cancer centre between October 2015 and January 2017. Women diagnosed with EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were offered LS testing. Tumours underwent MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI), and targeted MLH1-methylation testing. Women <50 years, with strong family histories and/or indicative tumour molecular features, underwent MMR germline sequencing. Somatic MMR sequencing was performed when indicative molecular features were unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation. The main outcome measures were the prevalence of LS in an unselected EC population and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and tumour testing strategies for risk stratifying women with EC for MMR germline sequencing. In total, 500 women participated in the study; only 2 (<1%) declined. Germline sequencing was indicated and conducted for 136 and 135 women, respectively. A total of 16/500 women (3.2%, 95% CI 1.8% to 5.1%) had LS, and 11 more (2.2%) had MMR variants of uncertain significance. Restricting testing to age <50 years, indicative family history (revised Bethesda guidelines or Amsterdam II criteria) or endometrioid histology alone would have missed 9/16 (56%), 8/13 (62%) or 9/13 (69%), and 5/16 (31%) cases of LS, respectively. In total 132/500 tumours were MMR deficient by IHC of which 83/132 (63%) had MLH1-hypermethylation, and 16/49 (33%) of the remaining patients had LS (16/132 with MMR deficiency, 12%). MMR-IHC with targeted MLH1-methylation testing was more discriminatory for LS than MSI with targeted methylation testing, with 100% versus 56.3% (16/16 versus 9/16) sensitivity (p = 0.016) and equal 97.5% (468/484) specificity; 64% MSI-H and 73% MMR deficient tumours unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation had somatic MMR mutations. The main limitation of the study was failure to conduct MMR germline sequencing for the whole study population, which means that the sensitivity and specificity of tumour triage strategies for LS detection may be overestimated, although the risk of LS in women with no clinical or tumour predictors is expected to be extremely low. In this study, we observed that age, family history, and histology are imprecise clinical correlates of LS-EC. IHC outperformed MSI for tumour triage and reliably identified both germline and somatic MMR mutations. The 3.2% proportion of LS-EC is similar to colorectal cancer, supporting unselected screening of EC for LS.

1 March 2017 in Laboratory Investigation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SKSarah Kitson
Sarah Kitson
VSVanitha N Sivalingam
Vanitha N Sivalingam
JBJames Bolton
James Bolton
RMRhona McVey
Rhona McVey
MNMashid Nickkho-Amiry
Mashid Nickkho-Amiry
ECEmma Crosbie
Emma Crosbie
Ki-67, a marker of cellular proliferation, is increasingly being used in pre-surgical window studies in endometrial cancer as a primary outcome measure. Unlike in breast cancer, however, there are no guidelines standardizing its measurement and its clinical relevance as a response biomarker is undetermined. It is, therefore, imperative that Ki-67 scoring protocols are optimized and its association with patient survival rigorously evaluated, in order to be able to clinically interpret the results of these studies. Using the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group guidelines as a basis, whole slide, hot spot and invasive edge scoring protocols were evaluated using endometrial biopsies and hysterectomy specimens from 179 women. Whole sections and tissue microarrays, manual and semi-automated scoring using Definiens Developer software were additionally compared. Ki-67 scores were related to clinicopathological variables and cancer-specific survival in uni- and multivariate analysis. Against criteria of time efficiency, intra- and inter-observer variability and consistency, semi-automated hot spot scoring was the preferred method. Ki-67 scores positively correlated with grade, stage and depth of myometrial invasion (P-values all <0.03). By univariate analysis, higher Ki-67 scores were associated with a significant reduction in cancer-specific survival (P≤0.05); however, this effect was substantially attenuated in the multivariate model. In conclusion, hot spot scoring of whole sections using Definiens is an optimal method to quantify Ki-67 in endometrial cancer window study specimens. Measured this way, it is a clinically relevant marker, though further work is required to determine whether reductions in Ki-67 in neoadjuvant intervention studies translate into improved patient outcome.

1 January 2017 in Cancer Prevention Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SKSarah Kitson
Sarah Kitson
D. Gareth EvansD. Gareth Evans
D. Gareth Evans
ECEmma Crosbie
Emma Crosbie
Already the fourth most common cancer in women in the developed world, the incidence of endometrial cancer is increasing rapidly, in line with the increasing prevalence of obesity. Relatively few studies have been undertaken of risk-reducing interventions aimed at limiting the impact of the disease on both individuals and the health service. Those that have been performed have demonstrated only modest results due to their application in relatively unselected populations. A validated risk prediction model is therefore urgently required to identify individuals at particularly high risk of endometrial cancer who may benefit from targeted primary prevention strategies and to guide trial eligibility. On the basis of a systematic review of the literature, the evidence for inclusion of measures of obesity, reproduction, insulin resistance, and genetic risk in such a model is discussed, and the strength of association between these risk factors and endometrial cancer is used to guide the development of a pragmatic risk prediction scoring system that could be implemented in the general population. Provisional cutoff values are described pending refinement of the model and external validation in large prospective cohorts. Potential risk-reducing interventions are suggested, highlighting the need for future studies in this area if the increasing tide of endometrial cancer is to be stemmed. Cancer Prev Res; 10(1); 1–13. ©2016 AACR.