Objective. To identify clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with vulvar melanoma (VM). Materials & methods. This... Show moreObjective. To identify clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with vulvar melanoma (VM). Materials & methods. This retrospective multicentre cohort study included 198 women with VM treated in eight cancer centres in the Netherlands and UK between 1990 and 2017. Clinicopathological features, treatment, recurrence, and survival data were collected. Overall and recurrence-free survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic parameters were identified with multivariable Cox regression analysis. Results. The majority of patients (75.8%) had localized disease at diagnosis. VM was significantly associated with high-riskclinicopathological features, including age, tumour thickness, ulceration, positive resection margins and involved lymph nodes. Overall survival was 48% (95% CI 40?56%) and 31% (95% CI 23?39%) after 2 and 5 years respectively and did not improve in patients diagnosed after 2010 compared to patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2009. Recurrence occurred in 66.7% of patients, of which two-third was non-local. In multivariable analysis, age and tumour size were independent prognostic factors for worse survival. Prognostic factors for recurrence were tumour size and tumour type. Only the minority of patients were treated with immuno- or targeted therapy. Conclusion. Our results show that even clinically early-stage VM is an aggressive disease associated with poor clinical outcome due to distant metastases. Further investigation into the genomic landscape and the immune microenvironment in VM may pave the way to novel therapies to improve clinical outcomes in these aggressive tumours. Clinical trials with immunotherapy or targeted therapy in patients with high-risk, advanced or metastatic disease are highly needed.Objective. To identify clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with vulvar melanoma (VM).Materials & methods. This retrospective multicentre cohort study included 198 women with VM treated in eight cancer centres in the Netherlands and UK between 1990 and 2017. Clinicopathological features, treatment, recurrence, and survival data were collected. Overall and recurrence-free survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic parameters were identified with multivariable Cox regression analysis.Results. The majority of patients (75.8%) had localized disease at diagnosis. VM was significantly associated with high-riskclinicopathological features, including age, tumour thickness, ulceration, positive resection margins and involved lymph nodes. Overall survival was 48% (95% CI 40-56%) and 31% (95% CI 23-39%) after 2 and 5 years respectively and did not improve in patients diagnosed after 2010 compared to patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2009. Recurrence occurred in 66.7% of patients, of which two-third was non-local. In multivariable analysis, age and tumour size were independent prognostic factors for worse survival. Prognostic factors for recurrence were tumour size and tumour type. Only the minority of patients were treated with immuno-or targeted therapy.Conclusion. Our results show that even clinically early-stage VM is an aggressive disease associated with poor clinical outcome due to distant metastases. Further investigation into the genomic landscape and the immune microenvironment in VM may pave the way to novel therapies to improve clinical outcomes in these aggressive tumours. Clinical trials with immunotherapy or targeted therapy in patients with high-risk, advanced or metastatic disease are highly needed. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Vos-Geelen, J. de; Geurts, S.M.E.; Putten, M. van; Valkenburg-van Iersel, L.B.J.; Grabsch, H.I.; Mohammad, N.H.; ... ; Lemmens, V.E.P.P. 2019
BACKGROUNDThe management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical... Show moreBACKGROUNDThe management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies.AIMTo establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer.METHODSIn this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.RESULTSIn total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26).CONCLUSIONOS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time. Show less
Claassen, Y.H.M.; Dikken, J.L.; Hartgrink, H.H.; Steur, W.O. de; Slingerland, M.; Verhoeven, R.H.A.; ... ; Velde, C.J.H. van de 2018
Large variation between hospitals and pathology laboratories was demonstrated in adherence to the guidelines. This is associated with type and volume of hospitals and pathology laboratories.... Show moreLarge variation between hospitals and pathology laboratories was demonstrated in adherence to the guidelines. This is associated with type and volume of hospitals and pathology laboratories. However, not all variation could be explained by these characteristics. The aim of this thesis was to identify factors influencing quality of care by investigating the variation in guidelines adherence of patients with colon and rectal cancer in the Netherlands. Considerable variation in lymph node evaluation between hospitals and pathology laboratories was revealed leading to suboptimal staging and potentially inaccurate treatment plans. Furthermore, large differences between hospitals were found in treatment according tot the guidelines. Based on the results of this thesis, it can be conclude that a part of the variation is associated with type and volume of hospitals and pathology laboratories. However, the large differences between individual hospitals suggests that these characteristics do not account for all variation. Therefore, further research is necessary to identify best practices and analyse factors which influence quality of care and outcome. Show less
