暂无摘要。

Standard treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian carcinoma (OC) consists of cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors and olaparib-bevacizumab has recently shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in the first-line setting. Some practical aspects of maintenance therapy, however, are still poorly defined.
To provide guidance to clinicians in the selection of maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian carcinoma.
A board of six gynecologic oncologists with expertise in the treatment of OC in Italy convened to address issues related to the new options for maintenance treatment. Based on scientific evidences, the board produced practice-oriented statements. Consensus was reached via a modified Delphi study that involved a panel of 22 experts from across Italy.
Twenty-seven evidence- and consensus-based statements are presented, covering the following areas of interest: use of biomarkers (BRCA mutations and presence of homologous recombination deficiency); timing and outcomes of surgery; selection of patients eligible for bevacizumab; definition of response to treatment; toxicity and contraindications; evidence of synergy of bevacizumab plus PARP inhibitor. Two treatment algorithms are also included, for selecting maintenance therapy based on timing and outcomes of surgery, response to platinum-based chemotherapy and biomarker status. A score for the assessment of response to chemotherapy is proposed, but its validation is ongoing.
We provide here consensus statements and treatment algorithms to guide clinicians in the selection of appropriate and personalized maintenance therapy in the first-line setting of advanced OC management.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Germline mutations in the BRCA gene account for most hereditary ovarian and breast cancer. Management of healthy carriers aims to prevent and allow early detection of breast and ovarian cancer. This study compares six different hereditary ovarian cancer management guidelines, highlighting areas of controversy between different societies. We aim to compare international and national guidelines regarding BRCA carriers\' management.
METHODS: A comparative study. We retrieved, reviewed, and compared the most recent guidelines of BRCA mutation carriers from the specializing societies NCCN (National Comprehensive National network) and ESMO (European society of medical oncology), and national societies of the United States (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), England (the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Canada (the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada) and Spain (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica).
RESULTS: There is a broad consensus regarding the limited role of screening for early ovarian cancer detection (4 out of 6) (4/6) and regarding the recommendation for implementation of Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) (6/6), some variations exist for age at RRSO. It is widely accepted that risk reducing salpingectomy should be performed only as part of research (5/6), and that the addition of risk-reducing hysterectomy should be individualized (3/6). Not all guidelines address fertility issues, and controversy exists regarding hormone replacement therapy (HRT) recommendations in unaffected young BRCA-mutation carriers following RRSO.
CONCLUSIONS: BRCA carrier\'s management guidelines consist of well-agreed topics such as the ineffective screening for early detection of ovarian cancer and the recommendation of RRSO. HRT remains controversial. Conforming unified recommendations is needed for providing evidence-based recommendations.

The majority of patients with advanced, high-grade epithelial-tubo ovarian cancer (EOC) respond well to initial treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy; however, up to 80% of patients will experience a recurrence. Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been established as a standard of care maintenance therapy to prolong remission and prevent relapse following a response to first-line platinum-chemotherapy. Olaparib and niraparib are the PARP inhibitors currently approved for use in the first-line maintenance setting in Canada. Selection of maintenance therapy requires consideration of patient and tumour factors, presence of germline and somatic mutations, expected drug toxicity profile, and treatment access. This paper discusses the current clinical evidence for first-line PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in patients with advanced, high-grade EOC and presents consensus statements and a treatment algorithm to aid Canadian oncologists on the selection and use of PARP inhibitors within the Canadian EOC treatment landscape.

BACKGROUND: An important number of breast and ovarian cancer cases is due to a strong genetic predisposition. The main tool for identifying individuals at risk is recognizing a suggestive family history of cancer. We present a prospective study on applying three selected clinical guidelines to a cohort of 1000 Slovenian women to determine the prevalence of at-risk women according to each of the guidelines and analyze the differences amongst the guidelines.
METHODS: Personal and family history of cancer was collected for 1000 Slovenian women. Guidelines by three organizations: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American College of Medical Genetics in cooperation with National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were applied to the cohort. The number of women identified, the characteristics of the high-risk population, and the agreement between the guidelines were explored.
RESULTS: NCCN guidelines identify 13.2% of women, ACMG/NSGC guidelines identify 7.1% of women, and SGO guidelines identify 7.0% of women from the Slovenian population, while 6.2% of women are identified by all three guidelines as having high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.7% of women from the Slovenian population as being at an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer based on their personal and family history of cancer using all of the guidelines. There are important differences between the guidelines. NCCN guidelines are the most inclusive, identifying nearly twice the amount of women as high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as compared to the AGMG/NSCG and SGO guidelines in the Slovenian population.

Genomic medicine has led to significant advancements in the prevention and treatment of cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 screening in high-risk individuals; however, the guidelines have not incorporated differences within ethnic cohorts beyond Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity. We analyzed the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in various ethnicities and identified high-risk personal characteristics and family history incorporating differences within ethnic cohorts beyond Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity.
We reviewed data collected by a Michigan medical genetic clinic in a community-based hospital from 2008 to 2018. A retrospective chart analysis was conducted of 1090 patients who received genetic counseling regarding hereditary cancer syndromes.
We found a statistically significant higher rate of pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence in African American patients, at 8.1%, compared to non-Ashkenazi Jewish white patients, at 3.6% (P = .02). African Americans have a mutational prevalence nearing that of the Ashkenazi Jewish population.
Revision of the NCCN guidelines regarding hereditary cancer syndrome testing in various ethnic groups is imperative and overdue. Future studies are needed to identify health care disparities in and socioeconomic barriers to genetic testing.

Germline/somatic BRCA-mutated ovarian carcinomas (OC) are associated to have better response with platinum-based chemotherapy and long-term prognosis than non-BRCA-associated OCs. In addition, these mutations are predictive factors to response to Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Different positioning papers have addressed the clinical recommendations for BRCA testing in OC. This consensus guide represents a collection of technical recommendations to address the detection of BRCA1/2 mutations in the molecular diagnostic testing strategy for OC. Under the coordination of Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP-IAP) and the Spanish Society of Human Genetics (AEGH), these recommendations have been developed by pathologists and geneticists taking into account previously published recommendations and their experience in the molecular characterization of these genes. Since the implementation of BRCA testing as a predictive factor can initiate the workflow by testing germline mutations in the blood or by testing both germline and somatic mutations in tumor tissue, distinctive features of both strategies are discussed. Additionally, the recommendations included in this paper provide some references, quality parameters, and genomic tools aimed to standardize and facilitate the clinical genomic diagnosis of OC.

BACKGROUND: Although BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing plays an important role in determining treatment modalities in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, sequence variants with unknown clinical significance or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) have limited use in medical decision-making. With vast quantities of gene-related data being updated, the clinical significance of VUS may change over time. We reinterpreted the sequence variant previously reported as BRCA1/2 VUS results in patients with breast or ovarian cancer and assessed whether the clinical significance of VUS was changed.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 423 breast or ovarian cancer patients who underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing from 2010 to 2017. The VUSs in BRCA1/2 were reanalyzed using the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology standards and guidelines (ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines) and the VUS was reclassified into five categories: \"pathogenic\", \"likely pathogenic\", \"VUS\", \"likely benign\", and \"benign\".
RESULTS: A total of 75 patients (48 sequence types of VUS) were identified as carrying either one or more VUS in BRCA1/2. Among the 75 patients, two patients (2.7%) were reclassified as \"likely pathogenic\", 30 patients (40.0%) were reclassified as either \"benign\" or \"likely benign\", and the remaining 43 patients (57.3%) were still classified as VUS category.
CONCLUSIONS: Since the clinical significance of VUS in BRCA1/2 may vary from time to time, reinterpretation of the VUS results could contribute to clinical decision-making.

Ovarian carcinomas represent a heterogeneous group of lesions with specific therapeutic management for each histological subtype. Thus, the correct histological diagnosis is mandatory.
References were searched by PubMed from January 2000 to January 2018 and original articles in French and English literature were selected.
In case of ovarian mass suspicious for cancer, a frozen section analysis may be proposed, if it could impact the surgical management. A positive histological diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma (type and grade) has to be rendered on histological (and not cytological) material before any chemotherapy with multiples and large sized biopsies. In case of needle biopsy, at least three fragments with needles>16G are needed. Histological biopsies need to be formalin-fixed (4% formaldehyde) less than 1h after resection and at least 6hours fixation is mandatory for small size biopsies. Tissue transfer to pathological labs up to 48hours under vacuum and at +4°C (in case of large surgical specimens) may be an alternative. Gross examination should include the description of all specimens and their integrity, the site of the tumor and the dimension of all specimens and nodules. Multiples sampling is needed, including the capsule, the solid areas, at least 1 to 2 blocks per cm of tumor for mucinous lesions, the Fallopian tube in toto, at least 3 blocks on grossly normal omentum and one block on the largest omental nodule. WHO classification should be used to classify the carcinoma (type and grade), with the use of a panel of immunohistochemical markers. High-grade ovarian carcinomas (serous and endometrioid) should be tested for BRCA mutation and in case of a detectable tumor mutation, the patient should be referred to an oncogenetic consultation.