Floriane Jochum

Impact of Antihypertensive Treatment on Outcomes of Adjuvant Bevacizumab for Ovarian Cancer ( IATRO ), Results from a Nationwide Emulated Clinical Trial

Antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab improves outcomes in ovarian cancer but induces hypertension, leading to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) are recommended for managing bevacizumab‐associated hypertension, their impacts on cancer progression and cardiovascular outcomes are unclear. This study compared the effects of CCBs and ACEi on progression‐free survival (PFS) in ovarian cancer patients treated with adjuvant bevacizumab. The incidence of MACE and overall survival (OS) were also evaluated. We conducted an emulated clinical trial using data from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2021, from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 98.8% of the French population. Patients with FIGO stage III to IV ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with bevacizumab, treated with CCBs or ACEi monotherapy within 6 months after surgery, were included. Out of 4,165 patients treated with bevacizumab, 454 met inclusion criteria for the main analysis: 273 in the CCBs group and 181 in the ACEi group. CCBs use was associated with a longer median PFS compared to ACEi (21.8 vs. 18.2 months) and a higher 3‐year PFS rate (difference of 8.2 percentage points, 95% CI: 2.0%; 14.8%). No significant difference in OS was observed between groups. Cardiovascular complications were more frequent with CCBs compared to ACEi, particularly congestive heart failure (difference in 3‐year incidence of MACE: −4.5 percentage points; 95% CI: −8.2%; −1.1%). These findings emphasize the need for a balanced approach to managing hypertension in cancer patients, considering both oncologic and cardiologic outcomes.

A reproducible framework for monitoring the impact of randomized clinical trials on clinical practice using large-scale real-world data: application to gynaecological surgical trials using the French national healthcare database

Survival outcomes of primary vs interval cytoreductive surgery for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IV ovarian cancer: a nationwide population-based target trial emulation

The effect of primary cytoreductive surgery vs interval cytoreductive surgery on International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IV ovarian cancer outcomes remains uncertain and may vary depending on the stage and the location of extraperitoneal metastasis. Emulating target trials through causal assessment, combined with propensity score adjustment, has become a leading method for evaluating interventions using observational data. This study aimed to assess the effect of primary vs interval cytoreductive surgery on progression-free and overall survival in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IV ovarian cancer using target trial emulation. Using the comprehensive French national health insurance database, we emulated a target trial to explore the causal impacts of primary vs interval cytoreductive surgery on stage IV ovarian cancer prognosis (Surgery for Ovarian cancer FIGO 4: SOFI-4). The clone method with inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to adjust for informative censoring and to balance baseline characteristics between the groups. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the stages and extraperitoneal metastasis locations. The study included patients younger than 75 years of age, in good health condition, who were diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2022. The primary and secondary outcomes were respectively 5-year progression-free survival and 7-year overall survival. Among the 2772 patients included in the study, 948 (34.2%) were classified as having stage IVA ovarian cancer and 1824 (65.8%) were classified as having stage IVB ovarian cancer at inclusion. Primary cytoreductive surgery was performed for 1182 patients (42.6%), whereas interval cytoreductive surgery was conducted for 1590 patients (57.4%). The median progression-free survival for primary cytoreductive surgery was 19.7 months (interquartile range, 19.3-20.1) as opposed to 15.7 months (interquartile range, 15.7-16.1) for those who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery. The median overall survival was 63.1 months (interquartile range, 61.7-65.4) for primary cytoreductive surgery in comparison with 55.6 months (interquartile range, 53.8-56.3) for interval cytoreductive surgery. The findings of our study indicate that primary cytoreductive surgery is associated with a 5.0-month increase in the 5-year progression-free survival (95% confidence interval, 3.8-6.2) and a 3.9-month increase in 7-year overall survival (95% confidence interval, 1.9-6.2). These survival benefits of primary over interval cytoreductive surgery were observed in both the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IVA and IVB subgroups. Primary cytoreductive surgery demonstrated improved progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with pleural, supradiaphragmatic, or extra-abdominal lymph node metastasis. This study advocates for the benefits of primary cytoreductive surgery over interval cytoreductive surgery for patients with stage IV ovarian cancer and suggests that extraperitoneal metastases like supradiaphragmatic or extra-abdominal lymph nodes should not automatically preclude primary cytoreductive surgery consideration in suitable patients.

Therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lymph nodal involvement is a prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. The added value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy compared with pelvic nodal evaluation alone remains a matter of debate in the management of patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prognostic value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. The study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to April 2023. Studies on intermediate- and high-risk patients who underwent pelvic versus pelvic and para-aortic dissection were included in the analysis. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2) were used for quality assessment of the selected articles. Fourteen studies were identified, encompassing 9415 patients with a median age of 62 years (IQR 56.5-66.5). The majority had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II disease (76%) and endometrioid histology (89%). The 72% of patients who underwent only pelvic nodal evaluation and the 87% who underwent pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy received adjuvant treatment (p=0.44). Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significant improvement in 5-year overall survival (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, p<0.01), translating to a 41% reduction in the risk of overall death. However, no significant differences were observed in the 5-year risk of recurrence (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, p=0.15). Additionally, patients undergoing pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy experienced a 26% increased risk of post-operative complications (RR=1.26, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.53, p=0.03) and prolonged operative times (MD=56.27, 95% CI 15.94 to 96.60, p<0.01). Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy appears to confer a prognostic benefit in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. Robust prospective studies are needed to further validate these findings and elucidate the precise role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the optimal management of these patients.

Management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a European survey

The aim of this study was to assess current European practices in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in 2021. A 58-question electronic survey was distributed anonymously to the members of six European learned societies. Initial diagnostic workup and staging, pathological data, surgical data, treatments and follow-up strategies were assessed. A total of 171 participants from 17 European countries responded to emailed surveys. Most participants were experienced practitioners (superior than 15 years of experience) specializing in gynecology-obstetrics (29.8%), surgical oncology (25.1%), and oncogynecology (21.6%). According to most (64.8%) participants, less than 50% of patients were eligible for primary debulking surgery. Variations in the rate of primary debulking surgery depending on the country of origin of the practitioners were observed in this study. The LION study criteria were applied in 70.4% of cases during PDS and 27.1% after chemotherapy. In cases of BRCA1-2 mutations, olaparib was given by 75.0-84.8% of respondents, whereas niraparib was given in cases of BRCA wild-type diseases. This study sheds light on current practices and attitudes regarding the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe in 2021.

Adherence to European ovarian cancer guidelines and impact on survival: a French multicenter study (FRANCOGYN)

The primary objective of the study was to validate the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-European Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ESGO) ovarian cancer guideline as a method of assessing quality of care, and to identify patient characteristics predictive of non-adherence to European guideline care. The secondary objectives were to analyze the evolution of practices over the years and to evaluate heterogeneity between centers. This retrospective multicenter cohort study of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer reported to the FRANCOGYN database included data from 12 French centers between January 2000 and February 2017. The main outcome was adherence to ESMO-ESGO guidelines, defined by recommended surgical procedures according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and appropriate chemotherapy. Mixed multivariable logistic regression analysis with a random center effect was performed to estimate the probability of adherence to the guidelines. Survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method and a mixed Cox proportional hazards model. 1463 patients were included in the study. Overall, 317 (30%) patients received complete guideline adherent care. Patients received appropriate surgical treatment in 69% of cases, while adequate chemotherapy was administered to 44% of patients. Both patient demographics and disease characteristics were significantly associated with the likelihood of receiving guideline adherent care, such as age, performance status, FIGO stage, and initial burden of disease. In univariate and multivariate survival analysis, adherence to the guidelines was a statistically significant and independent predictor of decreased overall survival. Patients receiving suboptimal care experienced an increased risk of death of more than 100% compared with those treated according to the guidelines (hazard ratio 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.47, p<0.01). In both models, a significant random center effect was observed, confirming the heterogeneity between centers (p<0.001). Adherence to ESMO-ESGO guidelines in ovarian cancer was associated with a higher overall survival and may be a useful method of assessing quality of care.

Impact of guideline adherence and expert center referral on the early management and outcomes of uterine sarcoma patients: A retrospective analysis from the French NETSARC network

Uterine sarcomas are rare tumors with a poor prognosis. Their diagnosis is often incidental, following surgery. Our goal was to examine the early management strategies for uterine sarcomas, and to assess the impact of guideline adherence and expert center referral on both the management approaches and the clinical outcomes in patients with uterine sarcomas. We retrospectively analyzed medical records from patients with uterine sarcoma referred to the Institut Curie and registered in the database of the French NETSARC network. In total, 100 patients, with a median age of 54 years, were included in the analyses. On MRI scans (n = 36), all patients had at least two signs suggestive of malignancy, and 77.8 % had four or more signs. No preoperative biopsy was performed in 65.6 % of cases. Only 14.1 % of patients underwent initial surgery at an expert center. Surgery performed outside the network was significantly associated with morcellation (32.9 % vs. 0 %; p = 0.036), fewer negative margins (R0 margins 52.4 % vs. 100 %; p = 0.006), and poor adherence to surgical guidelines (28.3 vs. 72.7 %; p = 0.013). Multivariate analysis showed that non-adherence to surgical recommendations was not significantly associated with relapse-free survival (HR = 0.54; 95 % CI [0.21-1.38]), but was an independent predictor of poor overall survival (HR = 0.12; 95 % CI [0.03-0.52]; p = 0.005). Despite a high frequency of suspicious clinical and radiological signs, a large proportion of women undergoing sarcoma surgery are treated outside of expert networks. We provide guidelines, integrating the clinical context and radiological signs to encourage early referral to reference centers for sarcoma.