s. greggi disclosure · hu 12 de octubre dr. cesar mendiola (nc) ca: 27/6-17: approved ec: 17/5-17:...

S Greggi

Disclosure

I have no conflicts of interest

EN CommitteeChicago 31 May 2018

Endometrial Cancer Committee

TRIALS STATUS - SUMMARYChicago May 2018

Chair S GreggiCo-Chair C Creutzberg

Closed Trials

Status Update


JGOG2047

Trial setting Newly Diagnosed or Recurrent Uterine Carcinosarcoma

Study Design Randomized Phase IIIII trial Comparing Dose-dense

Paclitaxel and Carboplatin (TC) vs Conventional Triweekly TC Therapy

Start Date January 2 2017

Premature Trial Closure Low accrual lack of financial support

Closed Trial ndash status update

Ongoing Trials

Status Update


ECCoEndometrial Cancer Conservative Treatment

A multicentre archive

PROJECT TYPE DESIGN amp TIME PERSPECTIVE

Observational Patient archive Prospective (a first phase of three years is planned followed byfurther three years

TREATMENT

SINCE THIS IS A ARCHIVE TREATMENT IS NOT DICTATED BY A PROTOCOL HOWEVER TREATMENT HAS TO BE ADMINISTERED

ACCORDING TO A IRB-APPROVED LOCAL PROTOCOL (except for the countries where conservative treatmentcan be given outside a IRB-approved study because considered as a standard procedure)

INCLUSION CRITERIA

- Conservatively treated endometrial cancer- Informed consent to personal data processing- Existence of an IRB-approved local protocol that allows conservative treatment to be performed (orstatement that such treatment is considered as a standard)

INTERVENTIONS amp OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collection - PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES proportion of complete regression duration of responsefrequency and pattern of relapse frequency of metachronous ovarian cancer tumor-related deathsData collection - SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES treatment related morbidity frequency ofspontaneous pregnancies frequency of pregnancies after ART pattern of residual disease ondefinitive surgical specimens

Stefano Greggi MD PhD

ECCO Study (May 25 2018)

GROUPCentre No Open No Active No Pts

MITOINT NaplesUCSC RomeHSR MilanUniv FedII NaplesUniv BariIRE Rome

6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a

Ongoing Trials ndash status update

Individual treatment recommendation based on

molecular pathology analysis

2 1 Standard treatment recommendation based on clinicopathological factors

Vaginal brachytherapy

Vaginal brachytherapy (~40)

Observation (~55)

External beam radiation therapy (~5)

Follow-up and Quality of Life

Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

Trial setting Stage I-II - high-inter risk Study Design Mol profile-based vs standard recomm for adjuv RT

PORTEC-4a


Pilot phase (n=50) endpoints

bull Logistics of molecular analysis (lt 2 wks)

bull Patient acceptance

bull Completed 50 pts

PORTEC-4a study endpoints (n=500)

bull Vaginal control and RFS

bull Pelvic and distant recurrence and OS

bull Quality of life and freedom from symptoms

bull Costs and use of health care resources

bull Current total 130

Satellite Thursday May 31 1300-1330 h Huron Room

ANZGOG and CTI (former ICORG) and GINECO planning to participate awaiting grant application validation of pathology labs

EC ndash Maintenance Therapy in AdvancedRec Disease

Trial Name Trial Description

EN-5S-I-ENDO

Selinexorfirst-in-class inhibitor of XPO1 (exportin1 the only nuclear exporter of major TSPs) induces nuclear retention accumulation and activation of TSPs leading to tumorapoptosis

Prospective Randomized Phase III

AdvancedRec EC

Selinexor vs Placebo (until PD)

Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS

ENGOT-EN5SIENDO Selinexor

Maintenance in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer


FPI January 2018 LPI Q4 2020 Primary endpoint PFS Secondary endpoint OS QOL TTP TFST TSST PFS2 TUDD ORR DOR ToxicityStratification a 1 vs 2 prior lines b PR vs CR Capping 2 prior lines will be capped at 50

Patient must consent for biopsy

Ran

do

miz

atio

n21

ARM ASelinexor80mg oral

once weekly

Advanced stage IV or firstsecond relapse of endometrial cancerEndometrioid Serous Undifferentiated or Carcinosarcoma

ARM BPlacebo

- Earlier (neo)adjuvant or first-line metastatic Taxane-Carboplatin or

- If second line metastatic again Taxane-Carbo or Anthracycline-based

- Prior adjuvant for stage I-III is not counted as a line of chemotherapy (except if

relapse within 6 months after last adjuvant chemo course)

- Prior surgery radiotherapy or hormonal therapy allowed

Chemo for at least 12 weeks

RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo

Start 3 - 8 weeks after completion of chemo

PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161

Until progression of disease or toxicity

ENGOT-EN5SIENDO Selinexormaintenance in advanced or recurrent

endometrial cancer


Group patients sites Activation Accrual

BGOG 40 pts 113 sites activatedOther 8 centers submission ECCA May 2018

4

GEICO 45-50 pts 15ECCA submission May 2018 Feedback expected July 2018

NOGGO 20-25 pts 8ECCA feedback received April 2018Approval expected May-June 2018

MITO 25 pts 8ECCA re-submission April 2018 Feedback expected May 2018

CEEGOG 25 pts 5ECCA submission expected May 2018 First site open expected August 2018

Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS

EN1FANDANGOSponsor NSGO

A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial of

1st-line combination CT + nintedanibplacebo in advanced or recurrent EC

Study Design

Planned No of patients 148

Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48

Stratificationbull Stage of disease (stage 3C 2 vs stage 4 vs recurrent disease) bull Prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yesno) bull Disease status (Measurable vs non-measurable disease according to RECIST 11)

ENGOT-EN1-FANDANGO - Overall Summary

14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients

NSGO Mirza 11 11 37 34

GINECO Berton-Rigaud12 12 41 33

NOGGO Sehouli12 11 23 21

BGOG Altintas6 6 10 9

TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s

Expected Activated sites Activated sites 41 Sites in total

40 Activated SitesScreeningRecruitment Status per group

100 Randomized patients

020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Expected Randomized patients Randomized patients

148 Patients in total

ENGOT- EN2-DGCGSponsor DGCG-NSGO

Phase II trial of postop CT vs nihil for pts with N-negative stage I-II intermediate or high risk EC


Current accrual 199

Status recruiting


EndometrioidStage I - G3 II

Non-endometrioidStage I-II

ChemotherapyCarboplatin-Paclitaxel x 6+ Brachytherapy

Observation+ Brachytherapy

11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG


Group PI Country No of Institutions ActivatedTotal pts randomized

May 2018

DGCG Mirza Denmark 6 6 63

The Netherlands Netherland 4 4 2

UK United Kingdom 9 9 31

NSGO Lundgren Sweden 4 4 30

Finland 6 5 9

BGOG Kridelka Belgium 10 8 13

MITO Greggi Italy 7 1 7

C-GOG (MDACC) Soliman US 1 1 1

MaNGO Ferrero Italy 6 2 3

NOGGO Sehouli Germany 9 5 11

AGO Chr Marth Austria 1 1 1

ISGO Levy Israel 7 3 0

GEICO Santabella Spain 14 12 21

CEEGOG Cibula Czech rep 5 2 6

Total 89 63 199

EN3-NSGOPALEOSponsor NSGO

Random double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial of Palbociclib + Letrozole vs Placebo + Letrozole

for Estrogen Receptor +ve advancedrecurrent EC


Current accrual 42

Status Slowly recruitingMITO still pending regarding approvals from CA and EC


Endometrial Cancer

Primary stage 4 or relapsed disease

ER positive endometrioid

adenocarcinoma

Randomize

ARM ALetrozole 25mg d 1-28 every 28 daysPlacebo 125mg d 1-21 every 28 days

Until progression

ARM BLetrozole 25mg d 1-28 every 28 days

Palbociclib 125mg d 1-21 every 28 days

Until progression

Stratificationbull Number of prior lines (primary adv disease vs 1st relapse vs ge2 relapses)bull Measurable vs evaluable diseasebull Prior use of MPAMegace

Randomization 11N=78

EN3-NSGOPALEO


Country Sites PI Submission statusPts Randomized

Denmark Rigshospitalet Mansoor R Mirza (NC)

CA 1310 ApprovedEC 1310 Approved 14

Odense Gitte-Betina Nyvang

Aalborg Bente Lund

Roskilde Joslashrn Herrstedt

Norway Haukeland (Bergen) Line Bjoslashrge (NC) CA 0201 Approved

EC 0301 Approved4

Radium Hospitalet Kristina Lindemann

Finland Tampere Annika Auranen (NC)CA 1703 Approved

EC 1303 Approved1

Kuopio Maarit Anttila

NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved

EC 216-17 Approved11

Chariteacute Universitaumltsmedizin Berlin Dr Jalid Sehouli

Kliniken Essen Mitte PD Dr Beyhan Ataseven

Klinikum der Universitaumlt Muumlnchen PD Dr Julia GallwasUniversitaumltsklinikum Halle (Saale) Dr Hans-Georg StraussKlinikum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaumlt Jena

Prof Dr Ingo Runnebaum

Universitaumlts-FrauenklinikHeidelberg

Prof Dr Frederic Marmeacute

GEICO

HU 12 de Octubre Dr Cesar Mendiola (NC)

CA 276-17 Approved

EC 175-17 Approved 12ICO Hospitalet Dra Marta Gil

ICO Girona Dra Pilar Barretina

HU Reina Sofiacutea Dra Mariacutea Jesuacutes Rubio

HU La Paz Dr Andreacutes Redondo

MITO

Torino Giorgio Valabrega

CA and EC ndash awaiting AIFA approval

following EC will approve

Rome Giovanni Scambia (NC) Napoli Sandro Pignata

Milano Domenica Lorusso

Lecce Graziana Ronzino

Bologna Claudio Zamagni

Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites

ExpectedNumber of opensites

Total number ofsites

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months

PALEO - Number of patients

ExpectedNubmer ofpatients

Total number ofpatients

Actual numberof patients

ENGOT-EN6 NSGOSponsor Tesaro

Lead Group NSGO

Phase III Study Comparing TSR042 plus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin vs Paclitaxel-Carboplatin Alonein AdvancedRecurrent EC

Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)

Carboplatin + Paclitaxel x 6+ TSR042 concomitant amp

maintenance

Carboplatin + Paclitaxel x 6

bull Inoperable Stage IV

bull Stage III-IV with macroscopic residual tumor

bull Stage IV - neoadjuvantchemotherapy

bull First relapse after primary stage I-II (+- adjuvant CT)

crossover is allowed after confirmation of disease progression

ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points

Primary endpoint bull PFS as assessed by RECIST 11 based on Independent Central Assessment

Secondary endpoints

Overall survival (OS)Objective response rate (ORR) Duration of response (DOR) Disease control rate (DCR) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) [European QoL scale 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) and EORTC QoL Questionnaire QLQ-C30]

STATECNCRIFIGO Stage I EC

- FIGO grade 3 endometrioid or mucinous- High grade serous clear cell undiff or de-diff ca or mixed cell adenoca or carcinosarcoma

Sentinel node sub

study

RANDOMISE (2000 patients)

ARM 1

TAH BSO Lymphadenectomy (Group 1a)

If randomised after TAH BSO

lymphadenectomy = Group 1b in

protocol

ARM 2

TAH BSO No Lymphadenectomy (Group 2a)

If randomised after TAH BSO no

further surgery is required = Group 2b

in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown

Vaginal Brachytherapy Alone

Unless post-surgery stage 3 then EBRT + Chemotherapy

Adjuvant TreatmentSee guidance document

Follow-up adverse events and quality of life 5 years

Sel Targeting Adjuvant Therapy End Ca

STATECNCRI

Sponsor University College London (UK)

As of 16052018

7 UK sites open 25 in set-up

3 Australian site open 10 in set-up

8 patients recruited (UK)

4 patients recruited (Australia)

DGOG 14 sites in set-up

12 randomized

10 sites open NCRI ANZGOG

49 sites in set-up NCRI ANZGOG DGOG

R

System lymphadenectomy

pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy

bull histology diagnosis of EC

bull FIGO IB II (all subtypes)

bull FIGO IA G3 (type I)

bull FIGO IA (Type II)

bull Absence of bulky nodes

bull Age 18-80y

Primary endpoint Overall Survival

n=640

Type I endometrioid endometrioid + squamous differentiation mucinous

Type II serous clear cell carcinosarcoma

ECLAT-Endometrial Cancer Lymphadenectomy Trial AGO-OP6

SLN in LNE arm as additional procedure allowed

Pelvic amp Para-aortic LA in Stage I-II EC with High Risk of Recurrence

EC ndash LND (syst) impact on survival

Trial Name Trial Description pts enrolledtotal

Lead GroupContact person

ECLAT Prospective Randomized Phase III

Stage IB-IIStage IA G3 (type I)Stage IA (type II)No bulky N

Aortic amp Pelvic LND vs Standard

Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2

40 German sites qualified

AGO G Hemons P Harter

ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials


Atezolizumab Trial in Endometrial cancer

Principal Investigator Nicoletta Colombo Istituto Europeo di Oncologia ndash Milano

Sponsor(s) MaNGO - Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri Milano

Planned No of patients 550 patients

Status not yet recruiting First patient-in planned for July 2018

PHASE III DOUBLE-BLIND RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF

ATEZOLIZUMAB IN COMBINATION WITH PACLITAXEL AND

CARBOPLATIN IN WOMEN WITH ADVANCEDRECURRENT

ENDOMETRIAL CANCER

ENGOT-EN7MaNGOAtTEnd

Main Inclusion Criteria

bull Newly diagnosed advanced (stage IIIIV) EC with postop RT or recurrent EC (not prior systemic therapy in the advancedrecurrent setting)

bull ECOG lt 2

bull Age gt 18 years

bull P-based CT in the adjuvant setting allowed if P-free interval gt 6 mos

bull Adequate bone marrow renal and hepatic function

bull Prior RT allowed

Study design

Stratified byPrior RTRecurrent diseaseMSI (centrally evaluated)

Primary Endpoint OS and PFS

Secondary Endpoints PFS in MSI PFS2 RR QoL safety

Translational Endpoints PD1 PDL1 TILs blood based biomarkers

Study Duration accrual 2 years Follow-up 2 years

Tot Sample size 550 evaluable patients

AtezolizumabPlacebo will be administeredas IV infusion every 21 days until progression confirmed at least 4weeks after the first evidence of progression according to RECIST v 11

Paclitaxel 175mgm2

carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 placebo

Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2

carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 atezolizumab 1200mg

Maintenance atezo1200mg

Stage IIIIV with residual disease or

recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

Study Time-Line and Organization

bull The contract with the supporter was signed in March

bull The already involved countries are Italy Spain (GEICO) Germany (AGO) UK (NCRI) Poland (PGOG) Austria (A-AGO) Switzerland (SAKK)

bull 70 sites are currently involved

bull The contract with the cooperative groups will be finalized June 2018

bull We are considering to expand the trial to other groups JGOG and ANZGOG

bull Submission to Italian CA and ECs on 16 May 2018

bull The First Patient In Italy is planned for July 2018

Advanced Endometrial Cancer

Study on Cytoreductive Surgery

Stefano Greggi (MITO)

TRIAL SETTING Primary Advanced Endometrial Cancer (all histotypes)

(FIGO Stage IIIA bulky IIIB IIIC bulky IVA IVB intra-abdominal)

treated during the period 2005-2015

diagnosed by pre-operative imaging techniques or intraoperatively

STUDY DESIGN Multicentric (Oncology Referral Centres ORC) retrospective

SPONSOR(S) None

PLANNEDEXPECTED NO OF PATIENTS 500

AGOStudy Group




The study is aimed to

- Document the treatment strategy adopted in ORC for pts with primary

Advanced Endometrial Cancer (AEC)

- Identify the predictors of survival

- Formulate a hypothesis for selection criteriapredictive factors for successful

cytoreductive surgery in AEC

- Explore the feasibility of a biomolecular TGCA grouping analysis (potential

subsequent prospective phase to validate)

OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION


Gynecologic Oncology Surgery

Istituto Nazionale Tumori ldquoFondazione G Pascalerdquo

Via M Semmola 80131 Naples Italy

Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851

E‐mail sgreggiistitutotumorinait

AGOStudy Group

AEC Study (May 25 2018)


MITOINT NaUniv BariIRCCS TriesteUniv FedII Na

41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals


Short Course Adjuvant Vaginal Cuff Brachytherapy (VCB) in Early

Endometrial Cancer Compared to Standard of Care (SAVE)

David Gaffney MDPhD FASTRO FACR

Please consider supporting PORTEC IV

Background

bull Endometrial cancer is common

bull Early stage cancers (stage I and II) gt80

bull Adjuvant brachytherapy is commonly utilized

bull Many women donrsquot get treated (gt23 of elderly women)

bull Brachytherapy and pelvic exams are stressors

bull Local control is high with vaginal brachytherapy (gt98 in multiple trials)

bull Lower dose regimens (lower BEDs) have local control gt99

Hypothesis a shorter treatment course

bull will result in greater compliance

bull permit more patients to receive adjuvant brachytherapy

bull be less intensive on radiotherapy resources

bull be more cost effective

bull result in less morbid

bull and have non-inferior patient satisfaction as measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs)

Randomization

2 Fractions11 Gy at the surface

(73 Gy at frac12 cm for a 3 cm cylinder)

Standard of care brachytherapy1 7 Gy frac12 cm x 32 5-55 Gy frac12 cm x 43 6 Gy surface x 5

Objectives

bull Primary Objective

bull Evaluate patient reported outcomes (PROs) using the Global Health Score from the QLQ30

bull Secondary Objectives

bull Evaluate cost effectiveness

bull Evaluate CTCAE v4 toxicities

bull Document any pattern of recurrence

bull Evaluate PROs for vaginal bladder and bowel symptoms using the EORTC EN24

Dose Prescription

We propose a study of 2 fractions of vaginal cuff brachytherapy of 11 Gy at

the surface (73 Gy at frac12 cm depth) given one week apart

of Fx Dose Per Fx at Surface (Gyfx)

Total Dose (Gy)

αβ EQD2 (Gy) BED (Gy) Origin

6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53

Table 1 EQD2 equivalent dose in 2Gyfraction

BED biological effective doseaOriginally prescribed at 05 cm depth surface dose estimated assuming using a 3 cm diameter cylinder

Experimental arm

Statistics

bull The EORTC QPQ-C30 reference values manual (Scott 2008) gives the means and SD of the Global Health Status in genitourinary cancer patients as 626 plusmn222 points

bull Differences of 10 points in the global scales are widely viewed as being clinically significant when evaluating the results of randomized clinical trials (Cocks 2008 Maringwa 2011)

bull We therefore assume a standard deviation of 222 points and an equivalence margin of 10 points for power calculations

bull With these assumptions a total sample size of 108 will provide 90 power

Conclusions

2 fractions of VCB compared to standard of care may allow

bull Greater compliance

bull Non-inferior patient satisfaction as measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs)

bull More patients to receive VCB

bull Be less intensive on radiotherapy resources

bull Be more cost effective

bull Maintain a high rate of local control

CHALLENGING DEBATE

Use of Molecular Factors in the Clinic Is it time to change

bull Background amp audience votehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipSGreggi

bull Molecular stratification feasibility data from PORTEC4 hellipCCreutzberg

bull Could biomolecular profiling on diagnostic biopsy help in tailoring surgery JSehouli


COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA

Audience laquoHands up Referendumraquo

DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC

bull Is any form of biomolecular stratification performed at your

Institution

bull If yes is this already entered into the routine primary

pathological assessment

bull Is this performed on diagnostic specimens

bull Is this performed on recurrent explorable disease

bull In your opinion it is time for the implementation of a routine

biomolecular profiling

bull In your opinion whatrsquos the major problem for the

implementation of a routine biomolecular profiling

1 technical resources amp logistics

2 costs

3 both

GCIG Endometrial CommitteeDebate ndash Chicago 31 May 2018

Is a trial using molecular risk stratification for treatment feasible in clinical practice

Carien Creutzberg

TGCA Kandoth et al Nature 2013

Molecular characteristics of endometrial cancer

Stelloo et al Clin Cancer Res 2016 Talhouk et al Cancer 2017

Prognostic significance of TCGA surrogate markers

0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P

High-intermediate risk EC Stelloo et al CCR 2016

Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd

N=834 (PORTEC) N=319 (Vancouver)

Unselected EC Talhouk et al Cancer 2017

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd

POLE in high grade high risk EC

Meng et al Gyn Onc 2014

TransPORTEC pilot study

L1CAM

L1-CAM strong negative prognostic factorbull About 7-10 overall L1CAM+bull L1CAM+ most often in grade 3 p53+ NEECbull Confirmed in large ENITEC series

(n=1200 vd Putten et al BJC 2016)

Zeimet et al 2013 Bosse et al 2014

Quantification of LVSI in PORTEC1-2 cohort

Substantial LVSI HR 46

Mild LVSI HR 22

Risk of distant metastases by LVSI

Nout et al ASTRO 2014 Bosse et al EJC 2015

Quantification of LVSI


Risk of pelvic recurrence

All 954 patients Substantial LVSI (5)

Stelloo et al Clinical Cancer Research 2016

Integrated clinicopathologic and molecular risk profile

Stelloo et al Clin Cancer Res 2016

bull Clinical and pathological characteristics

Age grade myometrial invasion LVSI treatment

bull Four molecular subgroups

POLE MSI p53 and remaining

bull Hotspot mutations

BRAF CDKNA2 CTNNB1 FBXW7 FGFR2 FGFR3 HRAS KRAS NRAS

PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN

bull Protein expression

ARID1a β-catenin ER PR L1CAM PTEN

LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM


bull 55 of high-intermediate risk patients reclassified to favourablebull 15 of high-intermediate risk patients reclassified to unfavourable




PORTEC-4a trial design

2 1

Standard treatment recommendation based on clinicopathological factors



Observation (~55)



High-intermediate risk ECRandomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable





bull Requirement to determine profile within 2 working weeks

bull Partipating groups validation of molecular profile amp logistics






bull Vaginal recurrence

bull Pelvic amp distant recurrence RFS and OS




Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee


PORTEC-4a profile ndash decision tree

Evaluation of the pilot phase

Endpoints


bull Determination of the molecular integrated profile within 2 working weeks

Methods

bull Evaluation of screening logs at the participating sites

bull Evaluation of logistics of day of randomization to day of communication of risk profile

Wortman et al submitted

Patient acceptance


Screening logs

bull Between June 10th 2016 and June 12th 2017

bull 145 eligible women were informed about the trial at 13 centers

bull 50 provided informed consent (35)

bull 32 patients randomized to the experimental arm

bull 18 to the standard arm

Patient accrual per center 0-57

Feasibility of pathology logistics


bull 3250 randomized to the experimental arm

bull Average time between

bull Randomization and receipt of all requested materials

58 days (1-16 days)

bull Randomization and determination of the profile

102 days (1-23 days) - excl LUMC 122 days (5-23 days)

bull In 5 of 32 patients (156) pathology review took gt2 weeks

Discussion

bull First randomized clinical trial that uses molecular-integrated risk profiles for HIR EC logistical challenge

bull Satisfactory patient acceptance rate of 35 (1 in 3 eligible women) range 0-57

bull Measures taken to further optimize the workflow of the determination of the risk profile

bull Involves microscopy and IHC and DNA analyis

bull Change from Sanger to NGS

bull At start 1 now 2-3 NGS runs per week

Essential factors

Prompt request and sending of the materials (slides and blocks)

Very dedicated pathologists

Conclusions

Randomized clinical trial using a molecular-integrated risk profile to determine treatment bull Logistical challenges but it can be donebull Women value the concept of more individualized risk

assessment and treatment

Trials needed to bring the molecular factors into clinical decision making

bull Prognostic who should be treated reduce overtreatment

bull Predictive which characteristics predict response to (chemo) therapy

bull Specific treatment POLE-mutated and MMRd tumors are responsive to immune checkpoint inhibition

bull Potential for pre-surgery treatment assignment

bull Preferably use clinicopathological and molecular integrated profiles

bull Double classifiers are a clinical challenge

Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group


Could biomolecular profiling on diagnostic biopsy already help in tailoring surgery

Jalid Sehouli

What are the potential questions

bull Prognostic factors PFS OS

bull Predictive factors - early stage vs advanced stage

- lymph node status - complete resection in advanced disease - timing of surgery (neodjuv vs adjuvant)

- subsequent therapies (morbidity and tumor control)

Primary Relapsed endometrial cancer

SehouliGCIG2018

The relationship between clinicopathological characteristics and serum biomarkers concentrations

Li J Lin J Luo Y Kuang M Liu Y (2015) Multivariate Analysis of Prognostic Biomarkers in Surgically Treated Endometrial Cancer PLOS ONE 10(6) e0130640 httpsdoiorg101371journalpone0130640 httpjournalsplosorgplosonearticleid=101371journalpone0130640


Slide 11

Presented By Hans Nijman at 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting

Association between EC molecular subtypes and clinic-pathological features

Haruma T Nagasaka T Nakamura K Haraga J Nyuya A Nishida T et al (2018) Clinical impact of endometrial cancer stratified by genetic mutational profiles POLE mutation andmicrosatellite instability PLoS ONE 13(4)e0195655

Predicting high-riskendometrioidcarcinomas usingproteinsDu D1 Ma W1 Yates MS2 Chen T3 Lu KH2 LuY4 Weinstein JN1 Broaddus RR5 Mills GB4 Liu Y1Oncotarget 2018

Variablesdagger OR (95 CI) P

TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status

deceased vs living187 (050 to 702) 355

Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001

Table 2 Multivariate logistic analyses for PSES scores and various diagnostic factors in patients with EEC

Abbreviations CI confidence interval OR odds ratiodaggerPSES score was treated as a continuous variable and all other covariates were binary age (0 for an age of 60 years or less and 1 for an age of greater than 60 years) grade (0 for a grade of 1 or 2

and 1 for a grade of 3) vital status (0 for living and 1 for deceased) and recurrence (0 for a tumor with no recurrence and 1 for a tumor with recurrence)

Predicting high-riskendometrioidcarcinomasusing proteinsDu D1 Ma W1 Yates MS2 Chen T3 LuKH2 LuY4 Weinstein JN1 BroaddusRR5 Mills GB4 Liu Y1Oncotarget2018

L1-cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM)

bull is a transmembrane protein of the immunoglobulin family bull Promotes tumor cell proliferation migration invasion and metastasis1

bull Activates the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway that is involved in motility- and invasion1

bull Elevated serum or tissue expression was associated with poor prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer 2

bull L1CAM expression reported as an independent predictor for PFS and OS and distant recurrence 3

bull Immunohistochemistry data from PORTEC-1 and PORTEC -2 showed an increased risk of distant recurrence and pelvic nodal relapse associated with high L1 CAM expression 4

1 Dellinger et al Gynecologic Oncology 141 (2016) 336ndash3402 FogelM et al L1 expression as a predictor of progression and survival in patients with uterine and ovarian carcinomas Lancet 362 (2003) 869ndash8753 AG Zeimet SA-A et al Large international multicenter evaluation of the clinical significance of L1-CAM expression in FIGO stage I type 1 endometrial cancer J Clin Oncol 29 (2011)

(Abstract 5091)4 BosseT et al L1 cell adhesion molecule is a strong predictor for distant recurrence and overall survival in early stage endometrial cancer pooled PORTEC trial results Eur J Cancer 50

(2014) 2602ndash2610

Dellinger et al Gynecologic Oncology 141 (2016) 336ndash340


Br J Cancer 2017 Sep 5117(6)840-847 doi 101038bjc2017235 Epub 2017 Jul 27Expression of L1CAM in curettage or high L1CAM level in preoperative blood samples predictslymph node metastases and poor outcome in endometrial cancer patientsTangen IL12 Kopperud RK2 Visser NC3 Staff AC45 Tingulstad S67 Marcickiewicz J8 AmantF910 Bjoslashrge L12 Pijnenborg JM11Salvesen HB12 Werner HM12 Trovik J12 Krakstad C12BACKGROUNDSeveral studies have identified L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) as a strong prognosticmarker inendometrial cancer To further underline the clinical usefulness of this biomarker weinvestigated L1CAM as a predictive marker for lymph node metastases and its prognosticimpact in curettage specimens and preoperative plasma samples In addition we aimed tovalidate the prognostic value of L1CAM in hysterectomy specimenMETHODSImmunohistochemical staining of L1CAM was performed for 795 hysterectomy and 1134 curettage specimen from endometrial cancer patients The L1CAM level in preoperative bloodsamples from 372 patients was determined using ELISARESULTSExpression of L1CAM in curettage specimen was significantly correlated to L1CAM level in corresponding hysterectomy specimen (Plt0001) Both in curettage and preoperative plasmasamples L1CAM upregulation was significantly associated with features of aggressive diseaseand poor outcome (Plt0001) The L1CAM was an independent predictor of lymph nodemetastases after correction for curettage histology both in curettage specimen (P=0002) andplasma samples (P=0048) In the hysterectomy samples L1CAM was significantly associatedwith poor outcome (Plt0001)CONCLUSIONSWe demonstrate that preoperative evaluation of L1CAM levels both in curettage or plasmasamples predicts lymph node metastases and adds valuable information on patient prognosis

Folate receptor alpha (FRα)

bull is a glycosylphosphatidyl-inositol-linked protein

bull overexpressed in solid malignancies eg breast lung and renal cancers

bull high FRα expression was associated with non-endometrioidhistology high grade and advanced stage of endometrialcarcinoma

bull This study aimed to identify patients with high-intermedaterisk determining FRα expression in the tissue samples

Role of folate receptor expression as tailoring biomarker for surgical approach

P=0004 P=0043

Unpublished data Kosian Sehouli Braicu SehouliGCIG2018


P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018

Prospective data are needed

bull Abrasio Uterus

bull (Sentinal) lymph node

bull distant metastasis

bull Liquid biopsy

Whatacutes aboutheterogeneity

SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS

bull L1CAM is mostly expressed in Type II ECs being associated with TP53 mutations

bull Higher levels are seen in high-risk endometrial cancers particularly in pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastases

bull triage biomarker for pelvic and para-aortic lymph node staging

bull Prospective data are needed

SehouliGCIG2018

Tailored Surgery in Endometrial cancerpotential cohorts

GROUP ANo surgery

GROUP BTotal hysterectomy only

GROUP CTotal hysterectomy +

systematic lymph node dissection

GROUP DTumor debuking

cytoreductionSehouliGCIG2018

Mark TwainbdquoForecasting is very difficultespecially about the futureldquo

MyLord ask mea your laquoimpossibleraquo

wish

Irsquod have oneare you sure

Nothing isimpossible

for me

OK GeniusFind now a HONEST

POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready

laquo Itrsquos kind of fun to do hellipthe impossibleraquo

Walt Disney

Endometrial Cancer Committee

TRIALS STATUS - SUMMARYChicago May 2018

Chair S GreggiCo-Chair C Creutzberg

Closed Trials

Status Update


JGOG2047







Ongoing Trials

Status Update






TREATMENT



INCLUSION CRITERIA








6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Closed Trials

Status Update


JGOG2047







Ongoing Trials

Status Update






TREATMENT



INCLUSION CRITERIA








6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

JGOG2047







Ongoing Trials

Status Update






TREATMENT



INCLUSION CRITERIA








6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Ongoing Trials

Status Update






TREATMENT



INCLUSION CRITERIA








6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney





TREATMENT



INCLUSION CRITERIA








6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




6XXXXXX

5XXXXX

573316431

MANGOH Bergamo

1X

1X

66

SHANGAI Fudan

1X

0 0

AGO AustriaWien

1X

0 0

ANZGOGParkville

1X

0 0

DGOGLeiden

1X

0 0

AGO Charite 0 0 0

Total 11 6 70

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

PORTEC-4a







Observation (~55)



Randomisation

Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable


PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

PORTEC-4a
















EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



EN-5S-I-ENDO



AdvancedRec EC


Primary EP PFS

ONGOING TRIALS






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney






Ran

do

miz

atio

n21


once weekly


ARM BPlacebo







RECIST

PRCR

on first

or

second

-line

chemo


PF

S1

PF

S2 O

S

N = 161



endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


endometrial cancer




4





Total +- 165 pts +- 45 4161

STUDY STATUS




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




Study Design


Current accrual 100

Status recruiting


Ran

do

miz

atio

n 1

1N

= 1

48



14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


14

Group NCNumber

ofSites

Number of Sites

Activated

Screened Patients

Randomized Patients





TOTAL 41 40 111 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Okt 16 Nov16

Dec16

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar17

Apr 17 May17

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug17

Sep 17Oct 17

Nu

mb

er

of

site

s




020406080

100120140160

Nov16

Dec16

Jan17

Feb17

Mar17

Apr17

May17

Jun17

Jul17

Aug17

Sep17

Okt17

Nov17

Dec17

Jan18

Feb18

Mar18

Apr18

May18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts






Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




Current accrual 199

Status recruiting






11 randomization

Supported by

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

ENGOT-EN2-DGCG



May 2018





Finland 6 5 9










Total 89 63 199





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney





Current accrual 42



Endometrial Cancer



adenocarcinoma

Randomize


Until progression



Until progression



EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

EN3-NSGOPALEO






Aalborg Bente Lund



EC 0301 Approved4



EC 1303 Approved1


NOGGO

Jalid Sehouli (NC)

CA 286-17 Approved








GEICO


CA 276-17 Approved





MITO








Total 25 42

0102030

Jan

-17

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-

17

Sep

-17

No

v-1

7

Jan

-18

Mar

-18

Nu

mb

er

of

Site

s

Months

PALEO - Open Sites



0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

-17

Ap

r-1

7

Jul-

17

Oct

-17

Jan

-18

Ap

r-1

8

Jul-

18

Nu

mb

er

of

pat

ien

ts

Months






Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


Lead Group NSGO


Stratification

MSI-H vs MSS

Prior RT

Rec disease

Randomization 11

N = 520 (MSI-H 130 amp MSS 390)


maintenance







ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

ENGOT-EN6 NSGO

End-Points


Secondary endpoints




Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



Sentinel node sub

study


ARM 1




protocol

ARM 2




in protocol

Lymph Node

Negative

Lymph Node

Positive

Lymph Nodes

Unknown






STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

STATECNCRI


As of 16052018






12 randomized



R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

R


pelvic

para-aortic

no lymphadenectomy






bull Age 18-80y


n=640












Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney







Primary EP OS (DSS)

Required 640

Enrolled 2



ONGOING TRIALS

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Activating Trials










ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney









ENDOMETRIAL CANCER




bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



bull ECOG lt 2





Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Study design








Paclitaxel 175mgm2


Maintenance placebo

Paclitaxel 175mgm2




recurrent EC

Confirmed PD

R 12

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

















SPONSOR(S) None


AGOStudy Group












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney












OBJECTIVES

AGOStudy Group




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




CONTACT INFORMATION





Tel +39 0815903320 Fax +39 0815903851


AGOStudy Group




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




41 20

SHANGAI Fudan 1 0 0

SAKKBern 1 0 0

NCRIWestmead 1 0 0

Total 7 1 20

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

New Proposals






Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney





Background















Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney








Randomization




Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Objectives








Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Dose Prescription




Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


Total Dose (Gy)


6 68a 408 3 80 133 Sorbe et al

10 57 69

6 34a 204 3 26 44 Sorbe et al

10 23 27

5 6 30 3 54 9010 40 48

3 10 30 3 78 13010 50 60

3 95a 285 3 71 119 PORTEC210 46 56

3 11 33 3 92 15410 58 69

2 10 20 3 52 8710 33 40

2 11 22 3 62 10310 39 46

2 12 24 3 72 12010 44 53



Experimental arm

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Statistics





Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Conclusions








CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

CHALLENGING DEBATE






COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

COLO-RECTAL CA

ENDOMETRIAL CA

LUNG CA

BREAST CA


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


DISEASE PROFILING

IN EARLY STAGE EC


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


Institution










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney










2 costs

3 both



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



Carien Creutzberg





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney





0 5 1 0 1 5

0

5 0

1 0 0

T im e (y e a rs )

Dis

ea

se

Sp

ec

ific

Su

rviv

al

()

p 5 3

P O L E

M S I

N S M P


Plt0005

POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd



POLE

NSMP

p53abn

MMRd




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




L1CAM






Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



Mild LVSI HR 22
















PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney














PIK3CA PPP2R1A PTEN



LVSI

POLE MSI p53

CTNNB1

L1CAM







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney







2 1




Observation (~55)




Favourable

Intermediate

Unfavourable

















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney















Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




Endpoints



Methods




Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Patient acceptance


Screening logs












58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney






58 days (1-16 days)




Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Discussion







Essential factors



Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Conclusions










Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

Remi Nout

Vincent Smit

Tjalling Bosse

Stephanie de Boer

Bastiaan Wortman

Ellen Stelloo

Inge van Gool

Alicia Leon del

Castello

Thank you

Utrecht

Ijsselmeer

Groningen

DrentheNoord

Holland

Gelderland

Limburg

Flevoland

Zuid Holland

Noord Brabant

Zeeland

Overijssel

Friesland

Waddenzee

PORTEC study group



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



Jalid Sehouli







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney







SehouliGCIG2018




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney




Slide 11






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney






TCGA

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 396 (180 to 873) 001

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years053 (024 to 117) 117

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12233 (106 to 512) 036

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no472 (188 to 1186) 001

MDACC

Advanced stage vs

early stage tumors

PSES score 537 (127 to 2265) 022

Age gt60 years vs

le60 years174 (070 to 432) 228

Grade Gr3 vs

Gr12092 (031 to 276) 882

Vital status


Recurrence yes vs

no1044 (355 to 3073) lt001













(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney









(2014) 2602ndash2610










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney










P=0004 P=0043



P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


P=0061

SehouliGCIG2018


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


bull Abrasio Uterus



bull Liquid biopsy


SehouliGCIG2018

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

CONCLUSIONS





SehouliGCIG2018


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney


GROUP ANo surgery








wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney



wish



for me


POLITICIAN

GoshThis is really

over mypowers

Are we ready


Walt Disney

s. greggi disclosure · hu 12 de octubre dr. cesar mendiola (nc) ca: 27/6-17: approved ec: 17/5-17:...

Documents