Incidence karcinomu endometria ve věkové skupině žen mladších 40 let narůstá, a proto roste i zájem o fertilitu šetřící léčbu. Nejčastěji používaná konzervativní léčba progestiny může být zvážena u pečlivě selektovaných pacientek s grade 1, stage IA karcinomem endometria bez myometriální invaze, které si přejí zachovat reprodukční funkce, a jsou ochotny podstoupit intenzivní léčbu a sledování a také určité riziko chirurgicky nestážovaného onemocnění. Před léčbou je potřeba co nejpřesněji zhodnotit biologický charakter a rozsah onemocnění. Hormonální terapie je aplikována obvykle 6 měsíců. Response rate se pohybuje přibližně v hodnotách 60–80 %, recurrence rate 25–40 %. Live birth rate je uváděn okolo 30 %. Je potřeba informovat pacientky o reálné možnosti recidivy, obvykle dobře léčitelné, i o výhodě použít metody asistované reprodukce, o potřebě intenzivního follow-up a doporučení definitivní léčby po dokončení reprodukčních plánů., The diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma in young women of childbearing age is rare, but the incidence in growing. Fertility-preserving therapy of endometrial carcinoma could be considered in patients with a histological diagnosis of grade 1 stage IA endometrial carcinoma without myometrial invasion who wish to preserve their fertility, are willing to accept intensive treatment, close follow-up and risk of unstaged disease. Conservative treatment is based on 6 months medical treatment with high-dose oral progestins. Response rate is referred between 60 and 80 %, recurrence rate 25–40 %; live birth rate around 30 %. Patients should be informed about real risk of recurrence and the need of future hysterectomy., and Pavla Svobodová
Disclosures: Eduardo Díaz-Rubio: Roche (C/A, RF); Auxiliadora Gómez-España: None; Bartomeu Massutí: Roche (C/A); Javier Sastre: None; Albert Abad: Roche (C/A); Manuel Valladares: Roche (C/A, RF, H); Fernando Rivera: Roche (C/A, RF); Maria J. Safont: None; Purificación Martínez de Prado: None; Manuel Gallén: None; Encarnación González: None; Eugenio Marcuello: None; Manuel Benavides: Roche (C/A); Carlos Fernández-Martos: None; Ferrán Losa: None; Pilar Escudero: None; Antonio Arrivi: None; Andrés Cervantes: Roche (H); Rosario Dueñas: None; Amelia López-Ladrón: None; Adelaida Lacasta: None; Marta Llanos: None; Jose M. Tabernero: Roche, Genentech, Sanofi- Aventis (C/A); Antonio Antón: None; Enrique Aranda: Roche, Merck Serono (C/A). (C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board. Purpose: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0–53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand–foot syndrome, and neuropathy. Conclusion: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with singleagent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients., Eduardo Díaz-Rubio, Auxiliadora Gómez-España, Bartomeu Massutí, Javier Sastre, Albert Abad, Manuel Valladares, Fernando Rivera, Maria J.Safont, Purificación Martínez De Prado, Manuel Gallén, Encarnación González, Eugenio Marcuello, Manuel Benavides, Carlos Fernández-Martos, Ferrán Losa, Pilar Escudero, Antonio Arrivi, Andrés Cervantes, Rosario Dueñas, Amelia López-Ladrón, Adelaida Lacasta, Marta Llanos, Jose M. Tabernero, Antonio Antón, Enrique Aranda, and Literatura 29