The efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs in gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Pub Date : 2025-02-23 DOI:10.1111/jog.16247

Jing Li, Dian Wang, Qing Duan, Ning Su, Xiufang Li, Haifeng Qiu

{"title":"The efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs in gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study","authors":"Jing Li, Dian Wang, Qing Duan, Ning Su, Xiufang Li, Haifeng Qiu","doi":"10.1111/jog.16247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a rare malignant tumor that is not associated with high-risk HPV infection, known for its high invasiveness and resistance to current treatments. This study assessed the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic regimens in real-world GEA patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with GEA were enrolled between February 2012 and March 2023, and their clinicopathological characteristics were collected from their medical records. The patients were categorized into groups based on whether they received anti-angiogenic treatments or not. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan–Meier method.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 43 GEA patients were enrolled in this study, with 23 cases who received anti-angiogenic drugs (nine received them as the primary treatment, 12 as first-line therapy after recurrence/metastasis, and two as second-line therapy) as the observation group. The other 20 patients who received similar treatments without the anti-angiogenic regimens serve as the control group. Compared to the control group, the addition of anti-angiogenic drugs as the primary treatment mildly extended progression-free survival (PFS) while not being statistically significant (16 months vs 11 months, <i>p</i> = 0.744). The negative results were also observed in 12 patients who started anti-angiogenic therapy as first-line therapy after recurrence/metastasis (8.5 months vs 9 months, <i>p</i> = 0.518). As for the overall survival (OS), no benefits were detected in either patients who started the anti-angiogenic therapy as primary or subsequent treatments (<i>p</i> = 0.499 and 0.450, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We firstly evaluated the efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs in treating patients with GEA. Although with a small sample size, our preliminary results clearly proposed that the anti-angiogenic therapy failed in suppressing tumors and should not be a preferred choice for GEA. As a much rarer tumor without standard treatments, we herein warned of a pitfall for gynecologic oncologists when facing this malignancy.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.16247","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a rare malignant tumor that is not associated with high-risk HPV infection, known for its high invasiveness and resistance to current treatments. This study assessed the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic regimens in real-world GEA patients.

Methods

Patients with GEA were enrolled between February 2012 and March 2023, and their clinicopathological characteristics were collected from their medical records. The patients were categorized into groups based on whether they received anti-angiogenic treatments or not. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 43 GEA patients were enrolled in this study, with 23 cases who received anti-angiogenic drugs (nine received them as the primary treatment, 12 as first-line therapy after recurrence/metastasis, and two as second-line therapy) as the observation group. The other 20 patients who received similar treatments without the anti-angiogenic regimens serve as the control group. Compared to the control group, the addition of anti-angiogenic drugs as the primary treatment mildly extended progression-free survival (PFS) while not being statistically significant (16 months vs 11 months, p = 0.744). The negative results were also observed in 12 patients who started anti-angiogenic therapy as first-line therapy after recurrence/metastasis (8.5 months vs 9 months, p = 0.518). As for the overall survival (OS), no benefits were detected in either patients who started the anti-angiogenic therapy as primary or subsequent treatments (p = 0.499 and 0.450, respectively).

Conclusion

We firstly evaluated the efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs in treating patients with GEA. Although with a small sample size, our preliminary results clearly proposed that the anti-angiogenic therapy failed in suppressing tumors and should not be a preferred choice for GEA. As a much rarer tumor without standard treatments, we herein warned of a pitfall for gynecologic oncologists when facing this malignancy.

查看原文本刊更多论文

目的胃型宫颈内膜腺癌（GEA）是一种罕见的恶性肿瘤，与高危型人乳头瘤病毒（HPV）感染无关，以其侵袭性强和对现有治疗方法耐受性强而著称。本研究评估了抗血管生成疗法对现实世界中 GEA 患者的疗效。方法在 2012 年 2 月至 2023 年 3 月期间招募了 GEA 患者，并从他们的病历中收集了他们的临床病理特征。根据患者是否接受抗血管生成治疗将其分为几组。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法进行生存期分析。结果本研究共纳入 43 例 GEA 患者，其中 23 例接受了抗血管生成药物治疗（9 例作为主要治疗手段，12 例作为复发/转移后的一线治疗手段，2 例作为二线治疗手段），作为观察组。另外 20 例接受类似治疗但未使用抗血管生成药物的患者作为对照组。与对照组相比，添加抗血管生成药物作为主要治疗方法可轻度延长无进展生存期（PFS），但无统计学意义（16 个月 vs 11 个月，P = 0.744）。在复发/转移后开始将抗血管生成药物作为一线治疗的 12 名患者中也观察到了负面结果（8.5 个月 vs 9 个月，p = 0.518）。至于总生存期（OS），无论是将抗血管生成疗法作为初治还是后续治疗的患者，均未发现获益（P = 0.499 和 0.450）。结论我们首次评估了抗血管生成药物治疗 GEA 患者的疗效。虽然样本量较小，但我们的初步结果清楚地表明，抗血管生成治疗未能抑制肿瘤，不应作为 GEA 的首选治疗方法。作为一种更为罕见且没有标准治疗方法的肿瘤，我们在此提醒妇科肿瘤学家在面对这种恶性肿瘤时要小心陷阱。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

376

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.