Is maintenance chemotherapy always necessary in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia? A retrospective cohort analysis

Year 2025, Volume: 11 Issue: 5, 1001 - 1007, 04.09.2025

Emre Hafızoğlu , Murat Bardakçı , Efnan Algın , Öznur Bal , Doğan Uncu

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.1754019

Abstract

Objectives: Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is a rare but highly curable group of gestational tumors. Current risk stratification relies on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging and WHO scoring systems, yet both have shown limited accuracy in predicting relapse or chemoresistance. The necessity of routine maintenance chemotherapy following remission - particularly in low-risk patients - remains controversial.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 25 patients with GTN treated between 2006 and 2022. Demographic, clinical, and treatment-related data were analyzed. Outcomes of interest included methotrexate (MTX) resistance, relapse, and the use of maintenance chemotherapy. Follow-up duration and disease outcomes were assessed descriptively.

Results: The median age at diagnosis was 28 years. Most patients (76%) had FIGO stage I disease; 44% were classified as high-risk. MTX resistance occurred in two patients (8%), both low-risk. Only one relapse was observed, occurring five years after remission. Maintenance chemotherapy was given to 64% of patients. Notably, none of the eight patients who did not receive maintenance therapy - including four high-risk cases - experienced relapse. No clear difference in outcomes was observed between stage I and stage III patients.

Conclusions: In this real-world cohort with long-term follow-up, maintenance chemotherapy did not appear necessary to prevent recurrence, even in select high-risk patients. Additionally, the FIGO/WHO systems showed limited prognostic discrimination. These findings support the need for individualized, response-adapted management strategies and underscore the limitations of current risk models in GTN.

Keywords

Maintenance chemotherapy , gestational trophoblastic neoplasia , FIGO stage

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ankara City Hospital Clinical Research Ethics Committee No. 1 (Decision no.: E1/2997/2022 and date: 02.11.2022). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Furthermore, it was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of good clinical practice. Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study and the analysis used anonymous clinical data.

References

• 1. Lurain JR. Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology, clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(6):531-539. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.073.
• 2. FIGO Oncology Committee. FIGO staging for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia 2000. FIGO Oncology Committee. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;77(3):285-287. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00063-2.
• 3. Niemann I, Vejerslev LO, Frøding L, et al. Gestational trophoblastic diseases - clinical guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and counselling. Dan Med J. 2015;62(11):A5082.
• 4. Ngan HYS, Seckl MJ, Berkowitz RS, et al. Update on the diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143 Suppl 2:79-85. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12615.
• 5. Powles T, Savage PM, Stebbing J, et al. A comparison of patients with relapsed and chemo-refractory gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(5):732-737. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603608.
• 6. Jin-Kai L, Fang J, Yang X. Prognosticating gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: from FIGO 2000 to future models. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;77:102890. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102890.
• 7. Osborne RJ, Filiaci V, Schink JC, et al. Phase III trial of weekly methotrexate or pulsed dactinomycin for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(7):825-831. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.4386.
• 8. Albright BB, Ellett T, Knochenhauer HE, et al. Treatments and outcomes in high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2023;130(5):443-453. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17374.
• 9. Seckl MJ, Sebire NJ, Berkowitz RS. Gestational trophoblastic disease. Lancet. 2010;376(9742):717-729. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60280-2.
• 10. Cioffi R, Fruscio R, Sabetta G, et al. Consolidation courses in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia and relapse rate: A MITO-9 retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2025;196:54-58. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2025.03.033.
• 11. Mitric C, Yang K, Bhat G, et al. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: does centralization of care impact clinical management? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(11):1724-1732. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004526.
• 12. Braga A, Elias KM, Horowitz NS, Berkowitz RS. Treatment of high-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia and chemoresistance/relapsed disease. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;74:81-96. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.01.005.
• 13. Lybol C, Sweep FC, Harvey R, et al. Relapse rates after two versus three consolidation courses of methotrexate in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(3):576-579. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.003.
• 14. Couder F, Massardier J, You B, et al. Predictive factors of relapse in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia patients successfully treated with methotrexate alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):80.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.183.
• 15. Branco-Silva M, Maesta I, Elias K, Berkowitz RS, Abbade JF, Horowitz NS. Consolidation chemotherapy in postmolar low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2):e059484. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059484.