Background 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) first published in 2017 evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with vulvar cancer. Objective To update the ESGO guidelines based on the new evidence addressing the management of vulvar cancer and to cover new topics in order to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment of vulvar cancer. Methods The ESGO Council nominated an international development group comprised of practicing clinicians who provide care to vulvar cancer patients and have demonstrated leadership through their expertize in clinical care and research, national and international engagement and profile as well as dedication to the topics addressed to serve on the expert panel (18 experts across Europe). To ensure that the statements were evidence-based, new data identified from a systematic search were reviewed and critically appraised. In the 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 206 international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. Results The updated guidelines cover comprehensively diagnosis and referral, staging, pathology, pre-operative investigations, surgical management (local treatment, groin treatment, sentinel lymph node procedure, reconstructive surgery), (chemo)radiotherapy, systemic treatment, treatment of recurrent disease (vulvar, inguinal, pelvic, and distant recurrences), and follow-up. Management algorithms are also defined.

Endometrial carcinoma represents the most common gynecological cancer in Europe and the USA. Histopathological classification based on tumor morphology and tumor grade has played a crucial role in the management of endometrial carcinoma, allowing a prognostic stratification into distinct risk categories, and guiding surgical and adjuvant therapy. In 2013, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network reported a large scale molecular analysis of 373 endometrial carcinomas which demonstrated four categories with distinct clinical, pathologic, and molecular features: POLE/ultramutated (7% of cases) microsatellite instability (MSI)/hypermutated (28%), copy-number low/endometrioid (39%), and copy-number high/serous-like (26%). In the present article, we report a detailed histological and molecular review of all endometrial carcinoma histotypes in light of the current ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. In particular, we focus on the distribution and prognostic value of the TCGA groups in each histotype.

The four TCGA-based molecular prognostic groups of endometrial carcinoma (EC), i.e., POLE-mutant, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient, p53-abnormal, and “no specific molecular profile” (NSMP), have recently been integrated into ESGO-ESTRO-ESP guidelines. The POLE-mutant and MMR-deficient groups are associated with high mutational load, morphological heterogeneity, and inflammatory infiltration. These groups are frequent in high-grade endometrioid, undifferentiated/dedifferentiated, and mixed histotypes. POLE-mutant ECs show good prognosis and do not require adjuvant treatment, although the management of cases at stage >II is still undefined. MMR-deficient ECs show intermediate prognosis and are currently substratified based on clinicopathological variables, some of which might not have prognostic value. These groups may benefit from immunotherapy. P53-mutant ECs are typically high-grade and often morphologically ambiguous, accounting for virtually all serous ECs, most carcinosarcomas and mixed ECs, and half of clear-cell ECs. They show poor prognosis and are treated with chemoradiotherapy; a subset may benefit from HER2 inhibitors or PARP inhibitors. The NSMP group is the most frequent TCGA group; its prognosis is highly variable and affected by clinicopathological/molecular factors, most of which are still under evaluation. In conclusion, the TCGA classification has improved diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of EC. Further studies are needed to resolve the points of uncertainty that still exist.

Tortorella L, et al. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Oct;32:e11. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e11

The objective of this work is to assess the 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing conization for high-grade cervical lesions that simultaneously present as risk factors in the persistence of HPV infection and the positivity of surgical resection margins. This is a retrospective study evaluating patients undergoing conization for high-grade cervical lesions. All patients included had both positive surgical margins and experienced HPV persistence at 6 months. Associations were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression and summarized using hazard ratio (HR). The charts of 2966 patients undergoing conization were reviewed. Among the whole population, 163 (5.5%) patients met the inclusion criteria, being at high risk due to the presence of positive surgical margins and experiencing HPV persistence. Of 163 patients included, 17 (10.4%) patients developed a CIN2+ recurrence during the 5-year follow-up. Via univariate analyses, diagnosis of CIN3 instead of CIN2 (HR: 4.88 (95%CI: 1.10, 12.41); p = 0.035) and positive endocervical instead of ectocervical margins (HR: 6.44 (95%CI: 2.80, 9.65); p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of persistence/recurrence. Via multivariate analyses, only positive endocervical instead of ectocervical margins (HR: 4.56 (95%CI: 1.23, 7.95); p = 0.021) were associated with worse outcomes. In this high-risk group, positive endocervical margins is the main risk factor predicting 5-year recurrence.

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