PURPOSE To compare the disease-free survival (DFS) between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies (RH) performed in academic medical institutions METHODS Retrospective multi-institutional review of patients undergoing RH for stage IA1 (with lymphovascular invasion), IA2, and IB1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS Of 815 patients, open RH was performed in 255 cases (29.1%) and minimally invasive RH in 560 cases (70.9%). There were 19 (7.5%) recurrences in the open RH and 51 (9.1%) recurrences in the minimally invasive group ( P = .43). Risk-adjusted analysis revealed that minimally invasive RH was independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.25). Other factors independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence included tumor size, grade, and adjuvant radiation. Conization before surgery was associated with lower recurrence risk (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.71). There was no difference in OS in the unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.11) or after risk adjustment (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.2). Of 264 patients with tumors ≤ 2 cm on final pathology (excluding those with no residual tumor on final pathology), 2/82 (2.4%) recurred in the open RH group and 16/182 (8.8%) in the minimally invasive RH group ( P = .058). In propensity score matching analysis, 7/159 (4.4%) recurrences were noted in the open RH group and 18/156 (11.5%) in the minimally invasive RH group ( P = .019). Survival analysis revealed an increased risk of recurrence in the minimally invasive group in propensity-matched cohort (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.18) CONCLUSION In this retrospective series, patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, including those with tumor size ≤ 2 cm on final pathology, had inferior DFS but not overall survival in the entire cohort.

Sulforaphane exerts anti-cancer activity against multiple cancer types. Our objective was to evaluate utility of sulforaphane for endometrial cancer therapy. Sulforaphane reduced viability of endometrial cancer cell lines in association with the G2/M cell cycle arrest and cell division cycle protein 2 (Cdc2) phosphorylation, and intrinsic apoptosis. Inhibition of anchorage-independent growth, invasion, and migration of the cell lines was associated with sulforaphane-induced alterations in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers of increased E-cadherin and decreased N-cadherin and vimentin expression. Proteomic analysis identified alterations in AKT, mTOR, and ERK kinases in the networks of sulforaphane effects in the Ishikawa endometrial cancer cell line. Western blots confirmed sulforaphane inhibition of AKT, mTOR, and induction of ERK with alterations in downstream signaling. AKT and mTOR inhibitors reduced endometrial cancer cell line viability and prevented further reduction by sulforaphane. Accumulation of nuclear phosphorylated ERK was associated with reduced sensitivity to the ERK inhibitor and its interference with sulforaphane activity. Sulforaphane induced apoptosis-associated growth inhibition of Ishikawa xenograft tumors to a greater extent than paclitaxel, with no evidence of toxicity. These results verify sulforaphane’s potential as a non-toxic treatment candidate for endometrial cancer and identify AKT, mTOR, and ERK kinases in the mechanism of action with interference in the mechanism by nuclear phosphorylated ERK.

Niraparib, an orally available selective inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP), is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with ovarian cancer who do not harbor a germ-line or somatic mutation in the breast cancer gene (BRCA). Overall, niraparib is well tolerated and its toxicities, primarily hematologic, are manageable especially with recently released initial dose modification guidelines based on weight and baseline platelet count. The role of niraparib as maintenance following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy as well as in the treatment of recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer is an active area of investigation. Areas covered: This review focuses on niraparib, its pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and adverse effects as evidenced by prospective clinical trials, and licensed indications. Expert commentary: Niraparib introduced the use of PARP inhibitors regardless of biomarker status. Recent studies highlight the critical need for more accurate biomarkers to identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment with PARP inhibitors. In the next 5 years, we anticipate further expansion of and elucidation regarding the optimal indication for use of niraparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

No abstract