supplement, devoted to the consensus review on rare T his malignant gynecologic tumors, is a report of an original
and unique initiative of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG). The primary objective of the GCIG is to facilitate interaction among cooperative groups conducting gynecologic cancer clinical research. To date, 27 cooperative groups from 20 countries have met the requirements for GCIG membership; that includes being a network of several sites having performed at least 1 randomized phase 3 therapeutic clinical trial in Gynecologic Cancer With Good Clinical Practice compliance and sufficient data management and statistical support. The continuous efforts of GCIG have facilitated significant progress in numerous international intergroup clinical trials, development of internationally accepted position papers (such as CA-125 response and progression criteria), performance of meta-analyses, and the conduct of Consensus Conferences (in Ovarian and Endometrial Cancers). The GCIG has also extended its collaboration with developing countries through its Cervix Cancer Research Network focused on inclusion in cervix cancer trials. Recently, the GCIG has initiated its annual 1-day brainstorming sessions addressing 1 of the topics from the 8 GCIG committees and working groups (ovary, corpus, cervix, translational research, early phase, rare tumors, health-related quality of life/symptom benefit/elderly, harmonization/statistics). The aims of these brainstorming sessions are to delineate and prioritize outstanding research questions and determine a joint approach to international research trials that could answer these questions.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
When the need was identified in 2012 for a GCIG brainstorming session on rare gynecologic tumors, the GCIG was presented with so many questions that the task seemed almost impossible to accomplish. What is the limit between rare and ‘‘frequent’’ tumors? How many of them are rare? Among these rare tumors, some are less rare, more rare, and very rare. Will the trial designs be similar among these entities so different in number? For most of these rare tumors, previous GCIG guidelines (Reed et al, 2004) had not been updated to formulate current questions. Nonetheless, the challenge was accepted. This GCIG initiative on rare gynecologic malignant tumors would not have been possible without the enormous volunteer efforts of Prof Isabelle Ray-Coquard, current chair of the GCIG Rare Tumors working group. Prof Ray-Coquard coordinated the entire project, the numerous preparatory meetings, the brainstorming event, and this consensus review publication. Importantly, the logistics were made possible, thanks to Monica Bacon, GCIG Operations Manager. And GCIG is grateful to Prof Jonathan Ledermann, who hosted the rare tumor brainstorming session in November 2013 in London. Without the incredible enthusiasm and voluntary efforts of all the experts who developed the consensus reviews and wrote and reviewed the papers included in this IJGC supplement, this success would never have been achieved. Eric Pujade-Lauraine, MD, PhD GCIG Chair Universite´ Paris Descartes, AP-HP, Paris, France
& Volume 24, Number S3, November 2014
Copyright © 2014 by IGCS and ESGO. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.