Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

ANKI- Gyn > Gyn.apkg > Flashcards

Gyn.apkg Flashcards

1
Q

what does FIGO stand for

A

International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is sentinel lymph node for cervical dissemination va lateral pelvic route

A

obturator node - spreads from there to ext iliacs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what lymph node allows spread fo deep inguinals for vulvar cancer

A

“saphenofemoral junction lymph node<div><img></img><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what stages of cervical cancer are amenable to cryo, laser cone, CN cone, LEEP, or radical trachelectomy, or simple hysterectomy

A

stage IA, no LVSI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what stage cervical cancer is best managed via modified rad hysterectomy

A

stage Ia, +LVSI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

which stages of cervical cancer are treated with radical hysterectomy

A

selected IB, IIA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what stage cervical cancer is treated definitively with RT without concurrent chemo?

A

stage IB1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what stages of vulvar cancer are treated surgically vs definitely not surgically

A

IA,IB,II<div><br></br></div><div>vs</div><div><br></br></div><div>IVA,IVB</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what is the rule of 15s for cervical cancer

A

stage 1: 5yr OS 85%, 15% +pelvic LN<div>stage 2: 5yr OS 70%, 30% +pelvic LN<br></br></div><div>stage 3: 5yr OS 55%, 45% +pelvic LN<br></br></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What imaging contributes to FIGO stage for uterine cancer

A

Just CXR<div>Nothing else contributes to clinical stage</div><div>So someone can be staged as 1B but practically will be treated as 3C</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what aspect of uterine staging was dropped in most recent FIGO update

A

dropped cervical gland involvement from stage IIA - just cervical stomal invasion matters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

GOG99 Keys 2004 high risk factors

A

grade 2-3<div>LVSI</div><div>outer 1/3 myometrial invasion</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what paper supports use of IMRT over 3DCRT four field for postop endometrial cancer

A

RTOG 1203 / TIME-C<div><br></br></div><div>worse GI,GU side effects and poorer measures of QOL</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what are the aggressive uterine cancers (other than sarcoma)

A

papillary serous<div>clear cell</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

GOG-33 Creasman et al 1987: describe study, pt selection, one-liner results

A

prospective surgical path study of 621 stage I endometrial cancer (excluded occult stage II via endocervical curettage)<div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what are the differences between FIGO 2014 vs 2018 staging for cervical cancer

A

eliminated width criteria in IA dz<div><br></br></div><div>added >5mm depth to stage IB</div><div>redefined IB1 (previously =4cm, now <2cm) and IB2 (previously >4cm, now 2-4cm), added IB3 (now >4cm)</div><div><br></br></div><div>added IIIC1/2 for pelvic vs para-aortic LAD</div><div><br></br></div><div>can use MRI, PET, ultrasound as part of staging</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what are you covering if you extend WPRT field to T11

A

psoitive common iliac nodes or paraaortic nodes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Why was point A chosen? Historical significance?

A

People used to get bladder and bowel necrosis, thought to be due to damage to uterine artery which provides some vasculature to these organs as well <div><br></br></div><div>Idea wasn’t to get dose to point A, but to avoid exceeding 85 Gy to point A</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Where is point B in T&O brachy? Meant to represent what? Goal dose at pelvic sidewall?

A

Up 2cm and over 5cm from patient midline<div>Proxy for pelvic sidewall/obturator nodes</div><div>61 Gy prescription dose for Ir129</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is indication for interstitial needles for cervical cancer

A

Dz extension not covered by standard intracavitary brachy<div><br></br></div><div>Difficult to reach if >0.5cm from mucosa</div><div>Significant Palpable parametrial dz on rectovaginal exam</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

When after surgery to perform VBT for endometrial cancer

A

Bring pt back 4wks after surgery to examine healing<div>If good, proceed</div><div><br></br></div><div>Decline in control if not done within 9wks after surgery</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What to Eval on plain film for T&O?

A

Is there packing above ovoids?<div>Is tandem bisecting space between ovoids?</div><div>Is tandem roughly midline in patient?</div><div>Are ovoids and tandem marker flush w fiducials?</div><div>Are ovoids rotated or level with each other? (Know rotated if see more than one dumbbell)</div><div>Is there packing on ant and post vaginal wall?</div><div><br></br></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How to differentiate grade 1/2/3 endometrial cancer

A

<5% nonsquamous, nonglandular cells<div>5-50% nonsquamous, nonglandular cells</div><div>>50% nonsquamous, nonglandular cells</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Does parametrium require sampling with either uterine or cervical cancer?

A

Required w cervical

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what describes the rate of rapid dose falloff in brachytherapy?

A

inverse square law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what is most common isotope used for gyn brachy?

A

Irridium-192

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what 2 trials support whole pelvic PORT for endometrial cancer in high risk pts?

A

PORTEC-1, GOG-99

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what trial supports substitution of VBT for WPRT in select patients for PORT for endometrial cancer?

A

PORTEC-2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

where are 75% of recurrences in PORTEC-1 trial?

A

vaginal cuff

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what is the effect of vaginal cylinder diameter on dose to 5mm depth?

A

“thicker vaginal cylinder (3cm) can slightly underdose at 5mm depth<div><br></br></div><div><img></img><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

which cylinder position reduces dose to rectum: neutral vs parallel vs angled?

A

“parallel looks best to me<div><img></img><br></br></div><div><img></img><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

what was the question in GOG-99? pt population? regimen?

A

“<div><span>PRT 392 pts with “intermediate risk” endometrial CA evaluating TAH/BSO with pelvic and PA nodal sampling and cytology randomized to </span><span>no adjuvant therapy or WPRT (50.4 </span><span>Gy</span><span>/28 </span><span>fx</span><span>)</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what were revised inclusion criteria for GOG-99?

A

“high intermediate risk as defined by GOG-33<div><br></br></div><div><div>•<span>Age >70 with 1 risk factor </span></div> <div>•<span>Age >50 with 2 risk factors</span></div> <div>•<span>Any age with 3 risk factors</span></div> <span>Risk factors include </span><span>grade 2-3, LVSI or outer 1/3 myometrial invasion</span><span></span><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

what were results from GOG-99?

A

“<span>Reduction in 2-yr recurrence rates for all patients (12% vs 3%) with biggest benefit in HIR pts (26% vs 6%), no difference in OS (was not powered for OS)</span><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>Reduction for low intermediate risk 6 vs 2%</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

what was the patient population/eligibility/regimen for PORTEC-1?

A

“<div><span>-PRT 714 pts w/ stage I endometrial cancer evaluating TAH/BSO + cytology +/- pelvic RT (no IVRT or PLND)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div> <div></div> <div><span>-Eligibility: <1/2 MI and G2-3 or >=1/2 MI and G1-2</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div> <div></div> <div><span>-RT given as 46 </span><span>Gy</span><span>/23 </span><span>fx</span><span> in 2-4 fields within 8 weeks post-op</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

what were LRR results from PORTEC-1? Who obtained most benefit?

A

“<div><span>Reduction in 15-yr LRR (16% vs 6%), greatest benefit observed in pts with 2-3 risk factors (age ≥60, >50% MI and Grade 3), no difference in OS or DM</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

what were the tested regimens in PORTEC-2?

A

“<div><span>PRT of 427 HIR pts s/p TAH/BSO (no PLND) randomized to </span><span>EBRT (46 </span><span>Gy</span><span>/23 </span><span>fx</span><span>) vs VBT (21 </span><span>Gy</span><span>/3 </span><span>fx</span><span>) HDR or 30 </span><span>Gy</span><span> LDR</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

what were differences in vaginal recurrence in PORTEC-2?

A

1.6% EBRT, 1.8% VBT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

what were differences in local regional recurrence in PORTEC-2?

A

2.1% EBRT, 5.1% VBT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

what were differences in pelvis only recurrence in PORTEC-2?

A

1.5% EBRT vs 0.5% VBT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

was there a difference in OS or DFS in PORTEC-2?

A

no<div><br></br></div><div>no recurrences differences were statistically significant, either</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

what toxicity improvements were observed with VBT vs EBRT in PORTEC-2?

A

“<span>53.8% vs 12.6% grade 1-2 GI toxicity</span><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>2% vs 0% late grade 3 GI toxicity</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>better QoL scores w brachy</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

what two prospective randomized trials examined the question of the utility of VBT +/- WPRT in postop endometrial cancer?

A

Aalders, Norway 1980<div><br></br></div><div>Sorbe, Swedish intermediate risk 2012</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

what was pt population in Aalders Norway trial?

A

“<div><span>PRT 540 pts with stage I endometrial CA evaluating TAH/BSO (no PLND) </span><span>followed by VBT then randomized to no further treatment vs pelvic EBRT</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

what were differences in local recurrence vs distant mets on Aalders Norway trial?

A

“<div>•<span>Pelvic RT arm had decreased 9-yr LR (6.9% vs 1.9%), but non-statistically more distant </span><span>mets</span><span> (5.4% vs. 9.9%)</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

what was difference in OS for all-comers vs important subset on Aalders Norway trial?

A

“<div><span>No difference in 5 or 9-yr OS (90% vs 87%)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>on subset analysis <b>pelvic RT did improve survival</b> for patients with<b>G3 and >50% MI or LVSI</b> (72% vs 82%)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>*recall that all pts on this trial were stage 1</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

what was the pt population and tested regimen in the Sorbe Swedish intermediate risk trial?

A

“<div><span>PRT 527 pts randomized to TAH/BSO+VBT +/- WPRT</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><div>•<span>Stage I </span><span>endometrioid</span><span> with 1 RF (G3, IB or DNA </span><span>aneuoploidy</span><span>)</span></div></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><div>•<span>EBRT 46 </span><span>Gy</span><span> + VBT or VBT alone (3 </span><span>Gy</span><span> x 6, 5.9 </span><span>Gy</span><span> x 3 or 20 </span><span>Gy</span><span> x 1 to 5 mm)</span></div></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

what was difference in pelvic recurrences and OS in Sorbe Swedish Int Risk trial?

A

“<div><span>Reduced pelvic recurrences with combined VBT+WPRT (5% vs 1.5% at 5 </span><span>yrs</span><span>)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>no difference in survival</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

what trial shows no need for postop VBT in low risk endometrial cancer?

A

Sorbe Swedish Low Risk Trial 2009

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

what was difference in vaginal recurrence rates in Sorbe Swedish Low Risk trial?

A

“<div><span>No significant difference in vaginal </span><span>recurrenc</span><span> (3.1% w/o vs 1.2% w/, p = 0.114)</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

what was difference in toxicity in Sorbe Swedish low risk trial?

A

“<div><span>Toxicity slightly higher with VBT (2.8% vs 0.6%)</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

what is difference in recommended dosing per ABS for T&O for cervical cancer if pt has <4cm residual dz vs nonresponder or >4cm residual disease? What is dose per fraction?

A

EQD2 >80 Gy = 5.5 Gy / 5 fx<div><br></br></div><div>vs</div><div><br></br></div><div>EQD2 85-90 Gy = 6 Gy / 5 fx</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

what is are the pros/cons of tandem and ring vs tandem and ovoid?

A

<div>Ring is better for shallow fornices, higher vaginal wall dose however</div>

<div><br></br></div>

<div>Ovoids have better lateral displacement</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

what and where is point P in Manchester system?

A

“2cm superior to ovoids and 6cm lateral<div><br></br></div><div>corresponds to pelvic sidewall</div><div><br></br></div><div><img></img><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

what is dose-limiting structure in T&O brachy plan in Manchester system?

A

rectal point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

what % of local failures for cervical cancer occur in HR-CTV or IR-CTV as defined by GEC-ESTRO?

A

“98%<div><br></br></div><div><span>EMBRACE I (</span><span>prospective study of MRI </span><span>adaptive </span><span>brachytherapy)</span><br></br></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

what is data to guide GEC-ESTRO guidelines for EQD2 >85Gy to HR-CTV?

A

“<div><span>RetroEMBRACE</span><span>: retrospective multi-center report of clinical and </span><span>dosimetric</span><span> outcomes using image-guided brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><div>•<span><b>Excellent LC (81%), PC (87%)</b>, OS (74%), CSS (79%) with limited morbidity</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div> <div>•<span>Significant correlation between local control and dose to target volumes (<b>D90 >=85 </b></span><span><b>Gy</b></span><span><b> to HR-CTV resulted in >94% control for small targets, >93% for medium targets and >86% for large targets</b>) </span><span>à</span><span> used of combined </span><span>intracavitary</span><span>-interstitial in necessary cases increased LC</span></div></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

what influence does poor placement of ovoids or packing have on disease control?

A

“<div><img></img><span><br></br></span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>-Patients with unacceptable symmetry of </span><span>ovoids</span><span> to the tandem had higher risk of LR compared to acceptable group (HR = 2.67)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div> <div></div> <div><span>-Displacement of </span><span>ovoids</span><span> relative to cervical </span><span>os</span><span> increased risk of LR (HR = 2.50) and DFS (HR = 2.28)</span></div><div><span><br></br></span></div> <div></div> <div><span>-Inappropriate placement of packing resulted in lower DFS rate (HR = 2.06)</span></div>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

what is time period (range) between initial HPV infection and development of cervical caner?

A

5-20 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

which HPV viruses are assoc w highest risk of cervical cancer?

A

HPV 16 and HPV 18

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

what is AJCC 8th edition nodal staging for cervical cancer?

A

“<img></img>”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

what study established WPRT+brachy for standard of care for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer?

A

Milan study<div>aka Landoni et al 1997, update in 2017</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

what is the clinical relevance of the Milan study for cervical cancer?

A

Surgery and RT have similar efficacy. RT preferable for larger tumors >4cm vs surgery preferable for adenocarcinoma.<div><br></br></div><div>Tumor diameter, histology, age, and comorbidities should be considered.</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

what was the pt population studied in the Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial?

A

343 patients with stage IB-IIA cervical cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

what was the regimen studied in the Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial?

A

radical hysterectomy + LND + adj RT if indicated vs 47 Gy EBRT + LDR to 70-90 Gy (median 76)<div><br></br></div><div>indicated for adj RT after surgery = pT2b, =3mm cervical stroma margin, tumor cut-through, N+. 65% got adj RT</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

what was 5 vs 20yr OS rates in Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial

A

5yr OS 83%<div>20yr OS 75%</div><div><br></br></div><div>no differences between surg vs RT</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

what was recurrence rate in Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial

A

25%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

what was median time to relapse in Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial

A

13.5 mos for surgery<div>11.5mos for RT</div><div><br></br></div><div>p=0.10</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

what additional morbidites were seen with adjuvant RT in Milan / Landoni cervical cancer trial

A

hydronephrosis, cystitis, LE edema, bowel obstruction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

what is the clinical relevance of GOG 71 (Keys 2003)?

A

showed no overall benefit to hysterectomy after definitive RT<div><br></br></div><div>Though on subanalysis, hysterectomy seemed to be favored in larger tumors size 4-6cm</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

what was patient population studied in GOG 71 (Keys 2003)?

A

256 patients with bulky IB cervical cancer (tumor/cervix 4cm or larger)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

what was the regimen studied in GOG 71 (Keys 2003)

A

40 Gy EBRT + 40 Gy LDR<div><br></br></div><div>vs</div><div><br></br></div><div>45 Gy EBRT + 30 Gy LDR + extrafascial hysterectomy</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

what was differences in 5yr local recurrence, PFS, and disease progression in GOG 71 (Keys 2003)

A

5yr LR 27 vs 14%<div><br></br><div>5yr PFS 53 vs 62% p=0.09</div><div><br></br></div><div>5 yr disease progression 46 vs 37% p =0.07</div><div><br></br></div><div>all slightly favoring hysterectomy over RT alone</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

was grade 3-4 toxicity different in GOG 71 (Keys 2003)

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

what was the clinical relevance of the Tata Memorial Centre trial (Gupta 2018) in cervical cancer?

A

Induction chemotherapy (carbo/taxol) prior to hysterectomy provided no benefit compared to definitive chemoRT, and DFS was worsened.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

what was the patient population studied in Tata Memorial Centre trial (Gupta 2018) for cervical cancer

A

635 patients with cervical SCC stage IB2, IIA, IIB

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

what were the regimens compared in Tata Memorial Centre trial (Gupta 2018) for cervical cancer

A

neoadjuvant carbo/taxol, radical hysterectomy, and postop RT or chemo as indicated<div><br></br></div><div>vs</div><div><br></br></div><div>definitive RT + cisplatin</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

what was 5yr OS vs DFS in Tata Memorial Centre trial (Gupta 2018) for cervical cancer

A

5yr DFS 69% vs 78%, p<0.05<div><br></br><div>5yr OS 75% both arms</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

what was differences in toxicity in Tata Memorial Centre trial (Gupta 2018) for cervical cancer

A

late toxicities generally worse w RT.<div><br></br><div>rectal 2.2 vs 3.5%</div><div>bladder 1.6 vs 3.5%</div><div>vaginal 12 vs 26%</div></div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

what 2 studies are considered most important for establishing definitive chemoRT for management of cervical cancer

A

Univ of Liverpool meta-analysis (Green, Lancet 2012)<div><br></br></div><div>GOG 123 (Keys 1999, Stehman 2007)</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

what was the patient population and regimen studied in the Liverpool metaanalysis(green et al, Lancet 2001)?

A

19 trials of patients with cervical cancer randomized to RT vs RT with concurrent chemo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

what was the differences in PFS and OS in Liverpool metaanalysis(green et al, Lancet 2001) for cervical cancer?

A

PFS 47 vs 63%<div><br></br></div><div>OS 40 vs 52%</div><div><br></br></div><div>favoring chemoRT</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

was there difference in toxicities for RT vs chemoRT in Liverpool metaanalysis(green et al, Lancet 2001) for cervical cancer?

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

what was the patient population in GOG 123 (Keys NEJM 1999, Stehman 2007)

A

369 patients with IB2 cervical cancer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

what were the tested regimens in GOG 123 (Keys NEJM 1999, Stehman 2007)

A

WPRT + brachy followed by adj simple hysterectomy<div><br></br></div><div>vs</div><div><br></br></div><div>WPRT + brachy + weekly cisplatin followed by adj simple hysterectomy</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

what was rates of pCR at hysterectomy in GOG 123 (Keys NEJM 1999, Stehman 2007)?

A

52% vs 41% favoring chemoRT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

what was 5yr PFS and OS in GOG 123 (Keys NEJM 1999, Stehman 2007)

A

5yr PFS 71 vs 60%<div>5yr OS 78 vs 64%</div><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div><div>(for reference only)<br></br></div><div>3yr LR 21 vs 37%</div><div>3yr OS 83 vs 74%</div><div><br></br></div><div>all favoring chemoRT over RT</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

what is the clinical relevance of GOG 33 (Creasman 1987)

A

surgical studying demonstrating Increased grade and invasion correlates with probability of nodal mets in 621 patients with clinical stage 1 endometrial cancer who underwent TAH/BSO, PLND, and peritoneal histology

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

what defined low/medium/high risk categories from results of GOG 33?

A

low: grade 1, invasion of endometrium only<div><br></br></div><div>moderate: grade 2-3 or up to invasion of middle third of myometrium (33-66% DOI)</div><div><br></br></div><div>high: intraperitoneal disease or outer 1/3 myometrial invasion</div>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

what two factors corresponded most strongly with extrauterine disease in GOG 33?

A

grade and depth of myometrial invasion

91
Q

what is risk of pelvic node involvement based on grade and DOI in GOG 33?

A

Risk of pelvic nodes<div>Grade 1 2 3</div><div><br></br></div><div>inner 1/3 | <5% | 5% | 10%</div><div></div><div>middle 1/3 | 5% | 10% | 10%</div><div><br></br></div><div>outer 1/3 | 10% | 20% | 35%<br></br></div>

92
Q

what is rough risk of PA node involvement based on grade and DOI in GOG 33?

A

“<span>Risk of PA nodes</span><div>Grade 1 2 3</div><div>inner 1/3 |<5% | 5% | 5%</div><div>middle 1/3 | 5% | 5% | 5%</div><div>outer 1/3 | 5% | 15% | 25%</div>”

93
Q

what was clinical relevance of GOG 99?

A

This trial showed that HIR patients w endometrial cancer s/p TAH benefit from adjuvant WPRT. The later PORTEC 2 showed that VC brachy is as effective as WPRT and with less adverse effects.

94
Q

does undergoing LND affect pelvic recurrences following TAH/BSO+PLND for FIGO 1 endometrial cancer based on data from GOG 99 and PORTEC-1?

A

“<span>pelvic recurrence in GOG 99 (which used LND) with no RT is 4%, same as PORTEC-1 (no LND allowed), which is 3.6% (Creutzberg 2000).</span><br></br>”

95
Q

what was patient population in GOG 99?

A

IB, IC, occult IIA,B s/p TAH/BSO<div><br></br></div><div>Excluded: pap serous/clear cell, cytology</div><div><br></br></div><div>Originally included intermediate risk, then amended to include HIR</div>

96
Q

how was high intermediate risk defined on GOG 99?

A

based off of data from GOG 33<div><br></br></div><div>age ≥70 with 1 risk factor, ≥50 with 2 risk factors, or any age with 3 risk factors. Factors are grade 2-3, LVI, or outer 1/3 myometrial invasion</div>

97
Q

what were treatment regimens tested in GOG 99?

A

TAH/BSO with selective LND of pelvis and paraaortic nodes, then randomized to WPRT to 50.4 Gy versus observation

98
Q

how many months after TAH/BSO do most pelvic recurrences occur in endometrial cancer (based on GOG 99)?

A

18 months

99
Q

what were local recurrence rates in total patient population vs HIR in gog 99?

A

“whole population: 2-yr LR 3% WPRT vs. 12% obs<div><br></br></div><div>HIR:<span>2-yr LR 6% vs. 26%</span></div>”

100
Q

where do majority of endometrial cancers occur following TAH/BSO?

A

“at the cuff, as demonstrated on GOG 99:<div><br></br></div><div><img></img><br></br></div><div><br></br></div><div>73% of first recurrences were at cuff on PORTEC-1</div>”

101
Q

Was there increase in secondary malignancies following RT in PORTEC-1 (WPRT) or PORTEC-2 (cuff brachy)?

A

no (Witlink 2014)

102
Q

what was patient population of PORTEC-1?

A

715 patients with Stage I (no IC Gr 3 or IB Gr 1) who underwent TAH/BSO (any histo allowed, but vast majority endo) without routine LND (performed if lymph nodes appeared suspicious)

103
Q

what was high intermediate risk defined in PORTEC-1?

A

need 2/3 factors of:<div>age >60</div><div>invasion >50%</div><div>grade 3</div>

104
Q

what were differences in high intermediate risk groups as defined by GOG 99 versus PORTEC-1?

A

“risk factors for GOG 99: grade <b>2</b>-3, LVI, or 66% invasion. then add age as additional risk factor. if >70, treat with only one factor, if >50, treated with two risk factors, treated any age with all 3 risk factors<div><br></br></div><div>risk factors for PORTEC-1:<span>need 2/3 factors of age >60, invasion >50%, or grade 3</span></div>”

105
Q

what was tested treatment regimen in PORTEC-1?

A

WPRT 46 Gy versus observation following TAH/BSO

106
Q

were rates of distant mets or overall survival different in PORTEC-1?

A

no. 5yr DM rate 7%, 5 yr OS ~82% in both arms

107
Q

what was rate of 5 yr LRR in total population versus HIR in PORTEC-1?

A

4% WPRT vs 14% obs for total population<div><br></br></div><div>HIR: 4% vs 23%</div>

108
Q

what is salvage rate following vaginal recurrence for patients on PORTEC-1?

A

Nomogram in Creutzberg et al, IJROBP, 2015<div><br></br></div><div>If vaginal recurrence, long term control 68% (most treated with radiation and brachy), with 2-yr OS 79% (worse compared to 5yr OS 82% in rest of trial population)<br></br></div>

109
Q

what is risk of late complications (15 years) following PORTEC-1 regimen?

A

“<div><span>At 15 years, WPRT group had more urinary incontinence, diarrhea, fecal leakage, and limits on daily activities</span><span><br></br></span></div><span><div><span><br></br></span></div>Late complications 26% WPRT vs. 4% obs</span><div><span><br></br></span></div><div><span>Late grade 3-4 toxicity 3% vs. 0% (all GI)</span></div>”

110
Q

what was clinical relevance of PORTEC-2?

A

This trial set a standard of VC brachytherapy for HIR patients instead of WPRT (tested on GOG 99, GOG 249, and PORTEC-1).

111
Q

what was patient population in PORTEC-2?

A

427 patients with HIR stage 1 endometrical cancer or stage IIA<div><br></br></div><div>excluded: rare histologies, stage IIA with concurrent grade 3 or deep MI)</div>

112
Q

how was HIR defined on PORTEC-2?

A

1) age >60 and 66% MI with grade 1-2, or 0-66% MI with grade 3<div><br></br></div><div>2) any age with stage IIA (no grade 3 or MI >50% in this group)</div>

113
Q

what was tested regimen in PORTEC-2?

A

noninferiority design of WPRT 46 Gy vs VCB to proximal 1/2 of vagina

114
Q

what was brachy cuff dosing in PORTEC-2?

A

proximal 1/2 of vagina<div><br></br></div><div>HDR 7 Gy x 3 versus LDR 30 Gy</div><div><br></br></div><div>to 5mm depth</div>

115
Q

what were rates of vaginal recurrence in PORTEC-2?

A

5-yr VR 1.6% WPRT vs. 1.8% VCB, noninferior<br></br><div><br></br></div><div>10-yr VR 2.4-3.4%, not different<br></br></div>

116
Q

what was pelvic recurrence rates in PORTEC-2?

A

“<span>5-yr pelvic recurrence 0.5% vs. 3.8% 10-yr pelvic recurrence 1% vs. 6% 10-yr pelvic recurrence first failure 0.5% vs. 2.5%, p=0.10</span>”

117
Q

why did PORTEC-2 conclude that cuff brachy is optimal choice for HIR patients with endometrial cancer despite reduced pelvic recurrences in WPRT group?

A

recurrence rates at cuff were identical, and majority of all recurrences occur at cuff.<div><br></br></div><div>most pelvic recurrences occur with simultaneous distant metastases.</div><div><br></br></div><div>QoL significantly better with cuff brachy.</div>

118
Q

what was patient population studied in Aalders 1980 (Norwegian Radium Hospital)?

A

540 patients with FIGO 1 adenocarcinoma of uterus s/p TAH/BSO

119
Q

what were tested regimens in Aalders Norwegian trial (endometrial cancer)?

A

60 Gy cuff brachy +/- WPRT 40 Gy to pelvic lymph nodes

120
Q

what were differences in local control between VCB +/- WPRT in Aalders trial? how did it change in select higher risk patients?

A

9yr LR 2% WPRT vs 7% VCB<div><br></br></div><div>In FIGO IC grade 3 tumors: LC 5% WPRT vs 20%</div><div><br></br></div><div>with LVSI: 0% without versus 20% with LVSI</div>

121
Q

why was overall survival reduced in VCB+WPRT arm in Aalders Norwegian trial?

A

After 20-yr followup, OS not changed, except decreased in patients age <60 due to 2nd cancer, HR 1.3. Risk of 2nd cancer increased HR 2.0. Most common 2nd malignancy was skin cancer.<div><br></br></div><div>Aalders used betatron and Cobalt brachy sources, which are associated with increased scatter. Subsequent analyses of PORTEC 1, PORTEC 2, and TME study in rectal cancer showed no increase in secondary malignancies.</div>

122
Q

what is a significant criticism of PORTEC 1?

A

Many patients who were reported as having grade 2 disease actually had grade 1 disease. The trial studies a lower risk population than what was anticipated to be enrolled.

123
Q

why do PORTEC trials use age cutoff of 60 as a risk factor instead of age 70, as in GOG trials?

A

“<img></img><div>Age 60-70 recurrence rates are more similar to patients over age 70.</div><div>Recurrence rates for age >60 were ~3x higher compared to <60.</div>”

124
Q

what was clinical significance of GOG 249?

A

cuff brachy followed by 3 cycles of outback chemo was not superior to WPRT for stage 1 (HIR), stage 2 endometrial cancer. Acute toxicity (from chemo) was significantly worse, late toxicity was similar.

125
Q

what was patient population in GOG 249?

A

601 patients with<div>Stage I endometrial HIR</div><div>Stage II endometrial adenocarcinoma</div><div>Stage I-II serous (15% total pop) or clear cell (5%) with negative peritoneal cytology<br></br></div>

126
Q

what was tested regimen in GOG 249?

A

TAH/BSO (89% with PLND) followed by<div><br></br></div><div>WPRT 45-50 Gy + optional VC for serous, pap or Stage II<div><br></br><div>vs</div><div></div><div>VC brachy then carbo/paclitaxel x3</div></div></div>

127
Q

what were differences in pelvis or PA nodal recurrences in GOG 249 with WPRT versus VCB+chemo?

A

4% WPRT vs 9%<div><br></br></div><div>other endpoints not different:</div><div>5 yr OS ~86%</div><div>RFS 76%</div><div>VCR 2.5%</div><div>DM 18%</div>

128
Q

“what is significance of<span>McGill retrospective study (Niazi 2005) in treating endometrical caner?</span>”

A

<div>supports treating stage 1 endometrial cancer with single modality HDR in patients who are poor operative candidates<br></br></div>

129
Q

what was patient population in retrospective McGill (Niazi 2005) analysis?

A

<b><u>38 patients</u></b> with Clinical (not pathologic) Stage I-II endometrial adenocarcinoma, high operative risk

130
Q

what % of patients received HDR alone in the McGill (Niazi 2005) study for intact endometrial cancer? what was regimen?

A

79% treated with HDR alone, 21% treated with EBRT + HDR<div><br></br></div><div>median EBRT 42 Gy, median HDR 24 Gy in 3 fractions</div>

131
Q

what were disease-specific survival rates in McGill study (Niazi 2005) for endometrical cancer treated with definitive RT?

A

15-yr DSS 78% for all stages<div><br></br></div><div>stage I DSS 90% and stage II DSS 42%</div><div><br></br></div><div>If Stage I by MRI and at least 30 Gy HDR, then 10-yr DSS 100%</div>

132
Q

what clinical factors may indicate need for WPRT instead of cuff brachy, in contrast to initial PORTEC-2 findings?

A

from 15 year update of PORTEC-2 with molecular analysis:<div>substantial LVSI<div>p53 mutation</div><div>L1CAM mutation</div></div><div><br></br></div><div>assocaited with reduction in pelvic recurrences with EBRT compared to cuff brachy</div>

133
Q

What was the clinical relevance of RTOG 9001 (Eifel JCO 2004) for cervical cancer?

A

trial demonstrating addition of chemo to definitive RT improves OS, LR, and DM<div><br></br></div><div>concurrent chemoRT is superior to extended field RT for these metrics in cervical cancer.</div>

134
Q

What was the patient population studied in RTOG 9001 (Eifel JCO 2004) for cervical cancer?

A

386 patients with stage IIB-IVA, or IB-IIA wih tumor >5cm or +pelvic LN

135
Q

What was the regimen studied in RTOG 9001 (Eifel JCO 2004) for cervical cancer?

A

→45 Gy EFRT + LDR to 85 Gy<div><br></br></div><div>vs.</div><div><br></br></div><div>→WPRT + LDR to 85 Gy + cisplatin/5-FU</div>

136
Q

What were the results of RTOG 9001 (Eifel JCO 2004) for cervical cancer?

A

<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>8-yr OS 41% in EFRT vs. 67% chemoRT</div><div><br></br>DFS 46% vs. 61%</div><div><br></br>LRF 35% vs. 18%</div><div><br></br>DM 35% vs. 20%</div><div><br></br>Late effects unchanged.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

<div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div>

<div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

137
Q

What RTOG trial supports use of EFRT for cervical cancer?

A

RTOG 7920 (Rotman, JAMA 1995)

138
Q

What was clinical relevance of RTOG 7920 (Rotman, JAMA 1995) for cervical cancer?

A

EFRT has improved OS over WPRT with less DM and salvage. DFS and LRF are unchanged.

139
Q

What was patient population in RTOG 7920 (Rotman, JAMA 1995)for cervical cancer?

A

367 patients with IB-IIA ≥ 4cm, or IIB cervical cancer

140
Q

What were the tested regimens in RTOG 7920 (Rotman, JAMA 1995) ?

A

→WPRT 40-50 Gy<div>vs.</div><div>→EFRT 44-45 Gy</div><div><br></br></div><div>both → 30-40 Gy intracavitary brachytherapy to point A</div>

141
Q

What were the results of RTOG 7920 (Rotman, JAMA 1995)?

A

<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Benefit in OS and DM with EFRT</div><div><br></br><b>10-yr OS 44% vs. 55% EFRT<br></br>DM 23% vs. 16%</b><br></br>DFS ~42%, not different<br></br>LRF 31-35%, not different<br></br><b>Local salvage 8% vs. 25%</b><br></br><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div></div>

<div></div>

<div><br></br></div>

<div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div>

<div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

142
Q

What was difference in toxicity with EFRT for cervical cancer in RTOG 7920?

A

Grade 4-5 toxicity 4% vs. 8% (p=0.06)<div><br></br></div><div>caveat: not IMRT</div>

143
Q

Does outback chemo improve PFS in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer?

A

yes, per México City trial (Duenas-Gonzales, JCO 2011)<div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><b>BUT at the cost of grade 3/4 toxicity</b> 87% vs 46%<br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div>and more hospitalizations 30% vs 11%</div><div><br></br></div><div>and no OS benefit</div><div><br></br></div><div>so not standard of care, but currently tested with RTOG 274 without gemcitabine in regimen</div>

144
Q

What was patient population in México City trial (Duenas-Gonzales, JCO 2011) for cervical cancer?

A

515 patients with stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer

145
Q

What was tested regimen in México City trial (Duenas-Gonzales, JCO 2011) for cervical cancer?

A

“→EBRT 50.4 Gy + brachy 30-35 Gy with weekly cisplatin<div>vs.</div><div>→Same RT + concurrent cis/gem + ““outback”” cis/gem</div>”

146
Q

what was PFS benefit with outback chemo in México City trial (Duenas-Gonzales, JCO 2011) for cervical cancer?

A

3yr PFS 74% outback chemo vs 65% without<div><br></br></div><div>BUT with no OS benefit and at significant cost of grade 3/4 toxicity 87 vs 46%</div>

147
Q

what was clinical relevance of Sedlis trial (GOG 92) for cervical cancer?

A

established adjuvant RT improves PFS and LR in int risk IB cervical cancer.<div><br></br></div><div>defines indications for postop RT for cervical cancer</div>

148
Q

what was patient population in Sedlis trial (GOG 92) for cervical cancer?

A

277 patients with Stage IB cervical cancer, N0 s/p radical hysterectomy.<div><b>Simplified criteria:</b> at least two of >1/3 stromal invasion, LVI, ≥4cm tumor (see paper for more detailed criteria)</div>

149
Q

what was the regimen investigated in Sedlis trial (GOG 92) for cervical cancer?

A

radical hysterectomy showing IB N0 disease, then<div>→WPRT 46 Gy or 50.4 Gy</div><div>vs.</div><div>→obs</div>

150
Q

what were LR, PFS, OS results in Sedlis trial (GOG 92) for cervical cancer?

A

10-yr LR 14% vs. 21%<div><br></br></div><div><b>10-yr PFS 78% vs. 65%</b></div><div><br></br></div><div>10-yr OS 80% vs. 71%, p=0.07<div><br></br></div><div>Update: recurrence 8.8% (adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous) vs. 44% in obs</div></div>

151
Q

“what was patient population in ““Peters trial”” GOG 109/SWOG 8797/RTOG 9112/INT 0107?”

A

“243 patients with IA2, IB, IIA cervical cancer and <span>LN+, +margin or +parametria</span> s/p radical hysterectomy”

152
Q

“what was clinical relevance of IA2, IB, IIA and ““Peters trial”” GOG 109/SWOG 8797/RTOG 9112/INT 0107 for cervical cancer?”

A

established indications for postop chemoRT for cervical cancer

153
Q

“what was tested regimen in ““Peters trial”” GOG 109/SWOG 8797/RTOG 9112/INT 0107?”

A

radical hysterectomy, then either<div><br></br></div><div>WPRT 49.3 Gy/ 29 fx<div><br></br><div>vs.</div><div><br></br></div><div>WPRT + concurrent cis/5-FU and 2x adjuvant cis/5FU</div></div></div>

154
Q

“what were results of ““Peters trial”” GOG 109/SWOG 8797/RTOG 9112/INT 0107 for OS and PFS for cervical cancer?”

A

favor chemoRT<div><br></br></div><div>4-yr OS 81% vs. 71%</div><div><br></br></div><div>4-yr PFS 80% vs. 63%<br></br></div>

155
Q

What was clinical relevance of EMBRACE and retroEMBRACE for cervical cancer?

A

Demonstrated outcomes and practice patterns of image guided BT to the HRCTV. Dose constraints are recommended.

156
Q

what was patient population studied in EMBRACE?

A

1416 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer who underwent MRI-guided brachytherapy

157
Q

According to EMBRACE, does tandem and ring or tandem and ovoid provide better coverage?

A

tandem and ring

158
Q

According to EMBRACE, what incremental dose is required to compensate for each 1wk break in treatment delivery?

A

5 Gy

159
Q

According to EMBRACE, interstitial brachytherapy has better LC than tandems in size over…?

A

30cc

160
Q

what were local control rates for stage IB, IIB, IIIB cervical cancers in EMBRACE study?

A

5-yr LC 98% Stage IB<div><br></br></div><div>91% IIB</div><div><br></br></div><div>75% IIIB</div><div><br></br></div><div>this compares favorably to historical controls. most failures are systemic.</div>

161
Q

what was OS rates in EMBRACE study?

A

overall 3-yr OS 74%, 5-yr OS 65%

162
Q

why is D2cc to rectum <65 Gy based on EMBRACE data?

A

2x less proctitis if <65 Gy<div><br></br></div><div>but this is difficult to meet frequently</div>

163
Q

what is rate of fistula if rectum D2cc > 75 Gy on EMBRACE study?

A

12.5%<div><br></br></div><div>vs 0% if <75 Gy</div>

164
Q

According to EMBRACE, keeping rectal dose under what dose keeps grade 2+ toxicity to <10%?

A

D2cc<69.5 Gy

165
Q

what are vaginal stenosis rates at 65 Gy, 75 Gy, and 85 Gy to rectovaginal point on EMBRACE study?

A

20%<div>27%</div><div>34%</div>

166
Q

what RTOG trial established IMRT for postop cervical or endometrial cases?

A

TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)

167
Q

what was patient population in TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

289 patients with either:<div><br></br></div><div>•Endometrial + cis: <50% inv G3 or >50% inv G1-2<div><br></br></div><div>•Endometrial ± cis: >50% inv, G3, USC, CCC, any stage II or IIIC1</div><div><br></br></div><div>•Cervix ± cis: Sedlis criteria</div><div><br></br></div><div>•Cervix + cis: pelvic or parametrial node+</div></div>

168
Q

what were results ofTIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

patients reported less diarrhea, frequency of incontinence, and interference of incontinence with IMRT<div><br></br></div><div>no difference in clinician reported adverse events</div>

169
Q

what is bowel space constraint on TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

V40 < 30%

170
Q

what is rectum constraint on TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

V40 < 80%

171
Q

what is bladder constraint on TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

V45 < 35%

172
Q

what is bone marrow constraint on TIME-C (NRG RTOG 1203, Yeung JCO 2020)?

A

V40 < 37%<div>V10 < 90%</div>

173
Q

What was patient population in ASTEC trial (not ASTEC/EN.5) for endometrial cancer?

A

1408 patients with endometrial cancer limited to uterus body<div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>

174
Q

what was tested regimen in in ASTEC trial (not ASTEC/EN.5) for endometrial cancer?

A

→pelvic LND vs.<div>→no PLND</div><div><br></br></div><div>Patients int/high risk (33%) further randomized to ASTEC/EN.5 RT trial, regardless of node status</div>

175
Q

what were results of ASTEC trial for endometrial cancer?

A

No change in RFS or OS with lymphadenectomy<div><br></br></div><div>9% positive nodes detected</div><div><br></br></div><div>5% crude rate of lymphedema</div><div><br></br></div><div>On subanalysis, no difference with depth, histology, grade, age, or performance status</div>

176
Q

why would someone still consider LND in patients with endometrial cancer despite negative results of ASTEC trial?

A

If LND resulted in positive nodes, no adjuvant therapy was required.<div><br></br></div><div>N dissection does provide staging information and guides therapy that could result in increased OS.</div>

177
Q

what was patient population in ASTEC/EN.5 trial for endometrial cancer?

A

905 patients with Stage IA to IIB endometrial cancer, Grade 1-3 (int/high risk).<div><br></br></div><div>Pap serous and clear cell allowed.<div><br></br></div><div>Positive pelvic nodes allowed in ASTEC, but not in EN.5. Total 4%</div><div><br></br></div><div>PA nodes are excluded</div></div><div><br></br></div><div>~30% had PLND (from ASTEC randomization)</div>

178
Q

what was tested regimen in in ASTEC/EN.5 trial for endometrial cancer?

A

pts randomized to PLND in ASTEC, then to ASTEC/EN.5 if they had int/high risk features (33%).<div><br></br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>then<br></br>→WPRT (median 45 Gy) <br></br>vs. <br></br>→obs<br></br><br></br>~50% brachy given in both arms</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

179
Q

what was effect of WPRT on pelvic or vaginal recurrences, OS, and DSS in ASTEC/EN.5 trial for postop endometrial cancer?

A

Isolated pelvic or vaginal recurrence improved: 3.2% WPRT vs. 6.1%<div><br></br></div><div>No change in OS or DSS</div>

180
Q

What was differences in toxicity with WPRT in ASTEC/EN.5 trial for endometrial cancer?

A

Toxicity worse with EBRT:<div>57% WPRT vs. 27% observation,</div><div><br></br></div><div>moderate toxicity 22% vs. 8%</div><div><br></br></div><div>late tox 8% vs. 3%</div>

181
Q

what was patient population of FIRES trial (Rossi, Lancet 2017)?

A

385 patients with Clinical Stage I endometrial cancer of all histologies and grades undergoing robotic staging.<div>predominantly lower lower grade and postop lower stage cancers</div>

182
Q

what was purpose of FIRES trial (Rossi, Lancet 2017)?

A

validate SLN approach in endometrial cancer:<div><br></br></div><div>evaluate prospective cohort.</div><div>→SLN mapping with cervical injection of indocyanine green, plus</div><div>→ pelvic LND ± PA LND</div><div><br></br></div><div>Negative SLNs were ultrastaged with immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin</div>

183
Q

what was sensitivity and NPV of SLN mapping on FIRES trial for endometrial cancer?

A

SLN detected nodal mets in 97% of LNDs (in 12% with positive nodes on dissection)<div><br></br></div><div>Sensitivity 97%, NPV 99.6%</div>

184
Q

what was pt population in PORTEC 3?

A

686 patients with<div>stage IA endometrial cancer with invasion, G3, and LVSI</div><div>or IB G3</div><div>or II</div><div>or IIIA, IIIC, IIIB if parametrial</div><div>or IA with invasion, IB, II, or III with serous or clear cell histology<br></br></div>

185
Q

what was tested regimen in PORTEC-3?

A

hysterectomy, then<div><br></br></div><div>→WPRT 48.6 Gy + VCB for cervical invasion<div>vs.</div><div>→WPRT + conc cisplatin x2 and adjuvant carbo/taxol x4</div></div>

186
Q

what were OS, FFS results of PORTEC-3 after longer followup and adjustment for misbalanced arms from randomization?

A

5-yr OS 81% vs. 76%, p=0.034<div><br></br></div><div>5-yr FFS 77% vs. 69%, p=0.016</div><div>These OS and FFS benefits were only in Stage III.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Stage I-II OS ~83%, FFS ~80%, not different</div><div><br></br></div><div><br></br></div>

187
Q

what were rates of distant metastases and isolated pelvic/vaginal recurrences on PORTEC-3?

A

5-yr isolated DM 21% vs. 29%<div><br></br></div><div>isolated pelvic (0.3%) and vaginal recurrence (0.9%) not different</div>

188
Q

what was results of PORTEC 3 regimen for papillary serous carcinoma?

A

5-yr OS 71% RT vs. 53% chemoRT + chemo<div><br></br></div><div>5-yr FFS 60% vs. 48%</div><div><br></br></div><div>serous had highest risk of recurrence<br></br></div>

189
Q

what was patient population in GOG 258 (Matei, NEJM 2019) for endometrial cancer?

A

736 patients with<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></br>-advanced endometrial carcinoma<br></br>-Stage III-IVA, serous papillary and undifferentiated carcinomas allowed<br></br>-Stage I-II clear cell or serous carcinoma<br></br>-Lymph node dissection optional</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

190
Q

what was tested regimen in GOG 258 (Matei, NEJM 2019) for endometrial cancer?

A

→WPRT 45 Gy + cisplatin + VCB (for cervix or vaginal involvement) then carbo/paclitaxel x4<div>vs.</div><div>→carbo/taxol x6 alone</div>

191
Q

what was clinical interpretation of GOG 258, which tested chemoRT with 4 cycles adj chemo vs 6 cycles chemo alone in advanced stage III-IVA or serous/undifferentiated endometrical cancer?

A

RT with concurrent and adjuvant chemo <b>did not significantly improve RFS </b>compared to chemo alone. OS results still maturing.<div><br></br></div><div>ChemoRT had less VR, LN recurrence, and toxicity.</div><div><br></br></div><div>Chemo alone had less DM.</div><div><br></br></div><div>OS results are maturing.</div>

192
Q

what were 5yr rates of distant met on GOG 258?

A

27% chemoRT + chemo vs 21% chemo alone

193
Q

what is common criticisms of GOG 258?

A

85% finished chemo cycles vs 75% finished chemo in chemoRT arm<div><br></br></div><div>4 cycles of carbo/taxol adjuvantly in chemoRT arm vs 6 cycles in chemo arm</div>

194
Q

what study is used for modern planning techniques for vaginal cancer?

A

ABS guidelines from Beriwal 2012

195
Q

what study provides evidence for favorable outcomes with definitive RT in vaginal cancer?

A

retrospective study of <200 pts<div>MDACC Frank et al, IJROBP 2005</div>

196
Q

what was 5yr disease-specific survival for vaginal cancer in Frank MDACC study by stage?

A

85% stage I<div>78% stage II</div><div>58% stage III-IVA</div>

197
Q

what was 5yr DSS for vaginal tumors <4cm vs >4cm in MDACC Frank study?

A

82% <4cm<div><br></br></div><div>60% >4cm</div>

198
Q

what was relapse rate for early vs late stage vaginal cancer in MDACC Frank study?

A

68% early<div><br></br></div><div>83% late</div>

199
Q

what was vaginal vs pelvic control for vaginal cancer treated w definitive RT in MDACC Frank study?

A

Vaginal control:<div>I-II 91%, III-IVA 83%<div><br></br></div><div>Pelvic control:</div><div>I 86%, II 84%, II-IVA 71%</div></div>

200
Q

what study established indications for postop RT for vulvar cancer?

A

“previously called ““heaps”” criteria, which we are trying to rename because the Dr. Heaps in question is convicted of sexual battery of his patients.<div><br></br></div><div>now called the UCLA criteria, published 1990</div>”

201
Q

what were risk factors assoc w recurrence following resection of vulvar cancer in UCLA study?

A

in order of significance:<div>stage, <b>margin, depth,</b> growth pattern, <b>vascular invasion,</b> keratin amount, mitotic activity</div>

202
Q

what 3 factors were NOT associated with local recurrence of vulvar cancer following surgery in UCLA study?

A

tumor size, nucleoli, grade

203
Q

what were recurrence rates with margin <8mm vs <5mm on UCLA postop vulvar study?

A

8mm: 48%<div><br></br></div><div>5mm: 57%</div>

204
Q

what was pt population in GOG 37 (vulvar cancer)?

A

114 pts with +groin nodes after vulvectomy and lymphadenectomy

205
Q

what was tested regimen in GOG 37?

A

RT 45-50 Gy to bilateral pelvic and inguinal nodes (excludes primary)<div>vs.</div><div>pelvic node resection</div>

206
Q

what was 6yr groin recurrence for RT vs pelvic LND in GOG 37?

A

5% vs 24%

207
Q

what was 2 vs 6yr OS rates from GOG 37 (vulvar cancer)?

A

2yr: 68% vs 54%, favoring surgery<div><br></br></div><div>6yr: 51% vs 41%</div><div><br></br></div><div>on subanalysis, benefit in palpable N+, +ECE, ulcerated LN, or 2+ nodes</div>

208
Q

what trial established adjuvant RT for resected vulvar cancer with palpable N+, ECE, ulcerated, or 2+ nodes?

A

GOG 37<div><br></br></div><div>randomized to pelvic and inguinal RT vs pelvic LND</div>

209
Q

what was patient populatin in GOG 88 (Stehman, IJROBP 1992)?

A

58 pts with clinically N0 vulvar cancer

210
Q

what was tested regimen in GOG 88 (Stehman, IJROBP 1992)?

A

Radical vulvectomy →<div>→50 Gy inguinal RT to 3 cm depth</div><div>vs.</div><div>→groin dissection + pelvic dissection if positive</div>

211
Q

what trial showed superior OS and LC with inguinal LND vs RT for clinically N0 vulvar patients? what is important caveat to this result?

A

GOG 88<div><br></br></div><div>Nodes were treated to depth 3cm, which led to significant underdosage. LF of 18% comparable to historical GOG failure of 24% without RT.</div>

212
Q

what were relapse and OS rates in GOG 88?

A

trial terminated early due to:<div>19% relapse in RT vs 0 in surgery</div><div><br></br></div><div>OS 63% vs 88%</div><div><br></br></div><div>but bear in mind, their RT was designed poorly to 3cm depth, resulting in underdosage</div>

213
Q

what trial established SLNbx as a reasonable approach for vulvar cancer?

A

GOG 173 (Levenback, JCO 2012)

214
Q

what was pt population in GOG 173 (Levenback, JCO 2012)?

A

452 pts with vulvar cancer with ≥1 mm invasion, size ≥2 cm to <6 cm, clinically node negative

215
Q

what regimen was studied in GOG 173 (Levenback, JCO 2012)?

A

<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Phase II<br></br>SLN → inguinal dissection to all (regardless of SLN status)<br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div></div>

<div></div>

<div><br></br></div>

<div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div>

<div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

216
Q

what was false negative node rate versus flase negative predictive value in GOG 173?

A

<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>8.3% with false negative nodes</div><div><br></br></div><div>FN predictive value 3.7%</div><div><br></br></div><div>side note: For tumors <4 cm, FNPV 2.0%<br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div><div></div><div></div></div>

<div></div>

<div><br></br></div>

<div><div><div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div><div></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div>

<div><div><div></div><div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><div><div><div></div><div><br></br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

217
Q

what was tested in GROINSS-V? what was general result?

A

inguinal LND for vulvar cancer if SLN positive<div><br></br></div><div>Inguinal LND guided by SNLB leads to low groin failure (5yr recurrence 2.5% with SLN neg, 8% with SLN positive)<br></br></div>

218
Q

what was 10 yr DSS for vulvar cancer in GROINSS-V if LR occurred?

A

reduced from 90% to 69%<div><br></br></div><div>note that this provides rationale for postopRT, since local recurrences without RT result in substantially reduced OS</div>

219
Q

what is the question of GROINSS-VII (GOG 270)? what were general results?

A

can RT replace LND if SLNbx was positive?<div><br></br></div><div>yes, if SLNbx only shows micromet <div><br></br></div><div>otherwise, require LND due to high failure rate</div></div>

220
Q

what was purpose of GOG 205?

A

determine if neoadjuvant chemoRT in unresectable vulvar cancer would improve patient outcomes compared to historical control (phase 2)

221
Q

what was pt population in GOG 205?

A

58 patients with T3-4, N+ vulvar cancer, deemed unresectable

222
Q

what was tested regimen in GOG 205 for vulvar cancer?

A

Phase II: <div>→RT 57.6 Gy/ 32 fx + weekly cis</div><div>→ resection</div><div><br></br></div><div>cCR defined by biopsy, pCR defined by surgical resection</div>

223
Q

what was clinical complete response and pCR rates in GOG 205 following neoadj chemoRT for vulvar cancer?

A

cCR 64%<div><br></br></div><div>pCR 50%</div>

ANKI- Gyn (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions