Clinical consequences of upfront pathology review in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer

S M de Boer, B G Wortman, T Bosse, M E Powell, N Singh, H Hollema, G Wilson, M N Chowdhury, L Mileshkin, J Pyman, D Katsaros, S Carinelli, A Fyles, C M McLachlin, C Haie-Meder, P Duvillard, R A Nout, K W Verhoeven-Adema, H Putter, C L Creutzberg, V T H B M Smit, for PORTEC Study Group, S M de Boer, B G Wortman, T Bosse, M E Powell, N Singh, H Hollema, G Wilson, M N Chowdhury, L Mileshkin, J Pyman, D Katsaros, S Carinelli, A Fyles, C M McLachlin, C Haie-Meder, P Duvillard, R A Nout, K W Verhoeven-Adema, H Putter, C L Creutzberg, V T H B M Smit, for PORTEC Study Group

Abstract

Background: In the PORTEC-3 trial, women with high-risk endometrial cancer (HR-EC) were randomised to receive pelvic radiotherapy (RT) with or without concurrent and adjuvant chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 in weeks 1 and 4 of RT, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). Pathology review was required before patient enrolment. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the role of central pathology review before randomisation.

Patients and methods: A total of 1295 cases underwent pathology review to confirm HR-EC in the Netherlands (n = 395) and the UK (n = 900), and for 1226/1295 (95%) matching review and original reports were available. In total, 329 of these patients were enrolled in the PORTEC-3 trial: 145 in the Netherlands and 184 in the UK, comprising 48% of the total PORTEC-3 cohort of 686 participants. Areas of discrepancies were evaluated, and inter-observer agreement between original and review opinion was evaluated by calculating the kappa value (κ).

Results: In the 1226 pathology reviews, 6356 selected items were evaluable for both original and review pathology. In 43% of cases at least one pathology item changed after review. For 102 patients (8%), this discrepancy led to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial, most frequently due to differences in the assessment of histological type (34%), endocervical stromal involvement (27%) and histological grade (19%). Lowest inter-observer agreement was found for histological type (κ = 0.72), lymph-vascular space invasion (κ = 0.72) and histological grade (κ = 0.70).

Conclusion: Central pathology review by expert gynaeco-pathologists changed histological type, grade or other items in 43% of women with HR-EC, leading to ineligibility for the PORTEC-3 trial in 8%. Upfront pathology review is essential to ensure enrolment of the target trial-population, and to avoid over- or undertreatment, especially when treatment modalities with substantial toxicity are involved. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14387080, www.controlled-trials.com) and with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00411138).

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Histological type (A) and histological grade evaluation (B) in original and review pathology.

References

    1. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC. et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 2000; 355(9213): 1404–1411.
    1. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL. et al. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 92(3): 744–751.
    1. Blake P, Swart AM, Orton J. et al. Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTG EN.5 randomised trials): pooled trial results, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373(9658): 137–146.
    1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F. et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Radiother Oncol 2015; 117(3): 559–581.
    1. Straughn JM, Huh WK, Orr JW Jr. et al. Stage IC adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: survival comparisons of surgically staged patients with and without adjuvant radiation therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 89(2): 295–300.
    1. Greven KM, Randall M, Fanning J. et al. Patterns of failure in patients with stage I, grade 3 carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990; 19(3): 529–534.
    1. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC. et al. Outcome of high-risk stage IC, grade 3, compared with stage I endometrial carcinoma patients: the Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma Trial. JCO 2004; 22: 1234–1241.
    1. Bosse T, Peters EE, Creutzberg CL. et al. Substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) is a significant risk factor for recurrence in endometrial cancer—a pooled analysis of PORTEC 1 and 2 trials. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51(13): 1742–1750.
    1. Manion E, Cohen MB, Weydert J.. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32(5): 732–737.
    1. de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L. et al. Toxicity and quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17(8): 1114–1126.
    1. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20(1): 37–46.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG.. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–174.
    1. Chafe S, Honore L, Pearcey R, Capstick V.. An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 48(5): 1433–1438.
    1. Khalifa MA, Dodge J, Covens A. et al. Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90(2): 425–430.
    1. Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H. et al. Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375(9717): 816–823.
    1. Scholten AN, van Putten WL, Beerman H. et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for Stage 1 endometrial carcinoma: long-term outcome of the randomized PORTEC trial with central pathology review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63(3): 834–838.
    1. Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H. et al. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100(4): 764–772.
    1. Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES. et al. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24(9): 1201–1208.
    1. Alkushi A, Abdul-Rahman ZH, Lim P. et al. Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29(3): 295–304.
    1. Han G, Sidhu D, Duggan MA. et al. Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2013; 26(12): 1594–1604.
    1. Gilks CB, Oliva E, Soslow RA.. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2013; 37(6): 874–881.
    1. Thomas S, Hussein Y, Bandyopadhyay S. et al. Interobserver variability in the diagnosis of uterine high-grade endometrioid carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016; 140(8): 836–843.
    1. McCluggage WG, Hirschowitz L, Wilson GE. et al. Significant variation in the assessment of cervical involvement in endometrial carcinoma: an interobserver variation study. Am J Surg Pathol 2011; 35(2): 289–294.
    1. Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM. et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer-combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22(16): 4215–4224.
    1. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S. et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer 2017; 123(5): 802–813.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다