No abstract

ConclusionTreatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes.

Introduction Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of the cervix is associated with a poor prognosis despite multimodal treatment. The correct diagnosis of this tumor type is imperative to provide clinicians and patients with prognostic information and ensure that appropriate treatment is provided. Methods A clinicopathological study was undertaken on all cervical tumors registered as NEC with the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2009. Of the 45 cases diagnosed during the study period, the tumor samples of 41 cases were traced, anonymized, and then independently reviewed by 2 gynecological pathologists. Results The review confirmed 31/41 (78%) cases to be NEC, which overall, represented 1.3% of all the cervical cancers registered in the West Midlands over the period of the study. In the correct histological context, synaptophysin was the most sensitive and specific positive immunohistochemical marker of NEC differentiation. The cases that on review were confirmed as NEC had a significantly worse outcome than the non-NEC cases: median survival for NEC cases was 33.3 months versus 315.0 months for the non-NEC cases, P = .013. Conclusions Histological review of a series of NECs has shown significantly reduced survival in those patients with confirmed NEC in comparison with those patients where a diagnosis of NEC was not confirmed. We propose morphological and immunohistochemical criteria for the diagnosis of cervical NEC; and discourage unqualified use of the term "small cell carcinoma" as this does not accurately convey the diagnosis of SCNEC. We urge pathologists to use the 2014 World Health Organization classification when reporting these tumors.

The categorisation of cervical cancer cases has the potential of yielding invaluable information for improving programme effectiveness. Patient compliance is the greatest challenge to the screening programme, and the need for regular screening and adherence to follow-up regimens needs to be reinforced in order to maximise the efficacy of the national screening programme.

Type II tumors are more common than type I and account for most tubal and peritoneal cancers. High-grade serous carcinomas, whether classified as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal, seem to behave as one disease entity with no significant difference in survival outcomes, therefore supporting the proposition of a separate classification of "tubo-ovarian serous carcinoma".