Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2018 Feb 1;29(2):424-430.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx753.

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

S M de Boer  1 , B G Wortman  2 , T Bosse  3 , M E Powell  4 , N Singh  5 , H Hollema  6 , G Wilson  7 , M N Chowdhury  5 , L Mileshkin  8 , J Pyman  9 , D Katsaros  10 , S Carinelli  11 , A Fyles  12 , C M McLachlin  13 , C Haie-Meder  14 , P Duvillard  15 , R A Nout  16 , K W Verhoeven-Adema  17 , H Putter  18 , C L Creutzberg  16 , V T H B M Smit  3 ; for PORTEC Study Group
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

S M de Boer et al. Ann Oncol. .

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).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Histological type (A) and histological grade evaluation (B) in original and review pathology.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

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. - PubMed
    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. - PubMed
    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. - PMC - PubMed
    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. - PubMed
    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. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data