Long-term outcome of patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer after pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection: a comparison of laparoscopic vs. open procedure

Oncological outcomes after laparotomic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic staging for early-stage high-intermediate or high-risk endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare oncological outcomes in patients with early-stage high-intermediate or high-risk endometrial cancer undergoing surgical staging by laparotomy, conventional laparoscopy, or robot-assisted laparoscopy.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 with stage I-II (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009), high-intermediate or high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent staging surgery, were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between groups were evaluated using log-rank testing. Additionally, survival analyses were stratified by histological subtype. The effect of surgical modality on risk of recurrence and all-cause death was assessed by performing Cox regression analysis with inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

In total 941 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 399 (42.4%) underwent staging surgery by laparotomy, 273 (29.0%) by laparoscopy, and 269 (28.6%) by robot-assisted laparoscopy. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the three groups. No difference in disease-free survival (75.0% vs 71.2% vs 79.0% p=0.35) or overall survival (72.7% vs 72.3% vs 71.2% p=0.98) was observed between patients after laparotomy, laparoscopy, or robot-assisted laparoscopy, respectively. Subanalyses based on histological subtype showed comparable disease-free survival and overall survival between surgical approaches. After correcting for possible confounders by means of inverse probability treatment weighting, there was no significantly increased risk of recurrence or risk of all-cause death after laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic staging surgery in women with early-stage high-intermediate or high-risk endometrial cancer are safe alternatives to laparotomic staging surgery.

Treatment of endometrial cancer from 2000 to 2020 in Germany: a retrospective population based cohort study

PURPOSE

Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common malignancies among women in western countries. This study aimed to assess data on patient treatment in Germany throughout two decades to evaluate the development and effect of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

METHODS

This retrospective registry study included 34,349 EC patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2020. Patients were classified into five risk groups. Overall survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method as well as univariable and multivariable Cox regression to evaluate risk factors and treatment options.

RESULTS

Over the study period, minimal invasive surgery was used more often compared to open surgery and was associated with better overall survival. Patients with advanced EC were more likely to receive multimodal therapy. Patients with intermediate risk EC had a good prognosis upon surgery, which further improved when radiotherapy was added. High-risk patients showed poorer prognosis but clearly benefited from additional radiotherapy. Survival of elderly high-risk patients with a non-endometrioid histology was improved when chemotherapy was added to surgery and radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our study includes a large analysis of data from German clinical cancer registries on the care of endometrial cancer during two decades. We observed an increase of minimal invasive surgery. There is evidence that minimal invasive surgery is not inferior to open surgery. Adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy further improves survival depending on risk group and age.

Therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lymph nodal involvement is a prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. The added value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy compared with pelvic nodal evaluation alone remains a matter of debate in the management of patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prognostic value of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer.

METHODS

The study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to April 2023. Studies on intermediate- and high-risk patients who underwent pelvic versus pelvic and para-aortic dissection were included in the analysis. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2) were used for quality assessment of the selected articles.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified, encompassing 9415 patients with a median age of 62 years (IQR 56.5-66.5). The majority had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-II disease (76%) and endometrioid histology (89%). The 72% of patients who underwent only pelvic nodal evaluation and the 87% who underwent pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy received adjuvant treatment (p=0.44). Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significant improvement in 5-year overall survival (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, p<0.01), translating to a 41% reduction in the risk of overall death. However, no significant differences were observed in the 5-year risk of recurrence (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, p=0.15). Additionally, patients undergoing pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy experienced a 26% increased risk of post-operative complications (RR=1.26, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.53, p=0.03) and prolonged operative times (MD=56.27, 95% CI 15.94 to 96.60, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy appears to confer a prognostic benefit in patients with intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. Robust prospective studies are needed to further validate these findings and elucidate the precise role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the optimal management of these patients.

A Review of Laparoscopic Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy for Early-stage Endometrial Cancer: Extraperitoneal Approach May Have the Advantage over Intraperitoneal Approach

The importance of lymphadenectomy, including para-aortic nodes, for the accurate staging of endometrial cancer, is well established. Although the therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrial cancer is still under debate, some studies support its usefulness for survival benefit. To predict the necessity of lymphadenectomy, several preoperative scoring systems have been proposed as being effective. For endometrial cancer, there is a trend towards minimally invasive surgery, including para-aortic lymphadenectomy. For para-aortic lymphadenectomy, there are two different approaches: the extraperitoneal approach and the transperitoneal approach. The extraperitoneal approach has advantages over the transperitoneal approach in terms of better access to the left aortic nodes, no interference of the bowel, and possibly better options for obese or elderly patients. However, the extraperitoneal approach may have a longer learning curve than the transperitoneal approach. Robot-assisted extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy is feasible and safe and may be suitable for patients irrespective of their baseline characteristics.

Comparison of the effects of laparoscopic and open hysterectomy on surgical site wound infections in patients with endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to compare laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and open hysterectomy (OH) in terms of surgical site wound infection, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications in patients with endometrial cancer (EC). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched for studies on OH and LH for EC published between 2008 and July 2023, in any language. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the quality of the included case-control studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were collated and analysed using Stata 17.0 software. A total of 1245 articles were screened according to the search strategy, and ultimately 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 1606 patients with EC, of which 751 were treated with LH and 855 with OH. The results showed that the rate of postoperative wound infection was significantly higher (OR: 0.290; 95% CI: 0.169-0.496, p < 0.001), the length of hospital stay was significantly longer (SMD: -1.976, 95% CI: -2.669 to -1.283, p < 0.001), and the incidence of postoperative complications was significantly higher (OR: 0.366; 95% CI: 0.280-0.478, p < 0.001) in the OH group than in the LH group. This study showed that LH was superior to OH for the treatment of EC and is associated with a lower rate of wound infection, shorter length of hospitalisation, and a reduced risk of complications. Thus, our findings support the choice of LH over OH for EC.

Minimally invasive para-aortic lymph node dissection in left-sided colonic and rectal cancer: experience based on a high-volume centre

AIM

There is no established consensus on the optimal surgical approach to para-aortic lymph node (PALN) dissection in patients with colorectal cancer. This study aimed to demonstrate the technical and oncological safety of minimally invasive PALN dissection for left-sided colonic and rectal cancer patients with clinically suspected infrarenal PALN metastasis.

METHOD

One hundered and one patients who underwent primary tumour resection and minimally invasive (laparoscopic n = 92, robotic n = 9) PALN dissection for left-sided colonic and rectal cancer were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PALN metastasis. Survival outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier (log-rank) method.

RESULTS

Para-aortic lymph node metastasis was pathologically confirmed in 23 patients (22.8%). Postoperative complications occurred in 22 patients (21.8%). Pathological N2 stage (OR = 9.337, p = 0.003) and inferior mesenteric artery LN metastasis (OR = 7.499, p = 0.009) were independently associated with PALN metastasis. The median follow-up time was 32 months (range 3-92 months). In all patients, the 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 76.1% and 69.5%, respectively. The 5-year OS and PFS rates in patients with PALN metastasis were 49.8% and 47.5%, respectively. Patients with PALN metastasis had lower 5-year OS (p = 0.023) and PFS rates (p = 0.035) than those without PALN metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive PALN dissection had acceptable postoperative complications and may be oncologically beneficial in selected patients with clinically suspicious PALN metastasis.

Laparoscopic vs. open procedure for intermediate‑ and high‑risk endometrial cancer: a minimum 4-year follow-up analysis

BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open procedures for patients with intermediate‑ and high‑risk endometrial cancer (EC) remain unclear. Accordingly, laparoscopy cannot still be recommended as the standard choice for intermediate‑ and high‑risk EC. This retrospective study aimed to assess the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery in patients with intermediate- and high‑risk ECs within a minimum 4-year follow-up.

METHODS

We included 201 patients who underwent laparoscopic or open procedures for intermediate‑ and high‑risk EC between 2010 and 2017. Between-procedure comparisons of perioperative and oncological outcomes were performed using the independent t-test or Pearson's chi-squared test and the Kaplan-Meier method, respectively.

RESULTS

Finally, there were 136 intermediate‑ and 65 high‑risk endometrial tumors in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. There were no between-group differences in all baseline characteristics. Compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group had a significantly longer mean operating time (p = 0.005) and a lower mean estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.031). There was a higher possibility of postoperative complication in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.048). There were no significant between-group differences in pathological outcomes as well as the recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates (p = 0.626 and p = 0.148, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with intermediate‑ and high‑risk EC, laparoscopic surgery has an advantage over the open surgery in reducing EBL and the rate of postoperative complications without weakening the oncological control. There were no between-procedure differences in the recurrence-free and overall survival rates.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

[Non endometroid endometrial cancer guidelines evaluation: A multicentric retrospective study]

Introduction

Les carcinomes de l’endomètre de type 2 sont des cancers peu fréquents et de mauvais pronostique. Il existe très peu d’étude analysant leur prise en charge. L’objectif de l’étude était d’étudier la prise en charge des carcinomes de type 2 dans nos centres en évaluant l’application des recommandations.

Matériel et méthode

Il s’agit d’une étude multicentrique rétrospective enregistrant les cancers de l’endomètre de type 2 pris en charge de janvier 2009 à décembre 2019. Les analyses ont été adaptées aux dernières recommandations françaises appliquées par rapport à l’année de prise en charge.

Résultats

Soixante-quatorze carcinomes de type 2 ont été analysés dans dix centres: 34 carcinosarcomes (45,9 %), 29 carcinomes séreux (39,2 %), neuf carcinomes à cellules claires (12,2 %) et deux carcinomes indifférenciés (2,7 %). Lors de la prise en charge initiale, les recommandations étaient appliquées dans 45,9 % des cas. Le principal motif de non-application des recommandations était la non-réalisation d’une stadification ganglionnaire chirurgicale pour 20 patientes (57,1 %). Lors de la prise en charge adjuvante, les recommandations étaient appliquées dans 37,8 % des cas. Le principal motif de non-application des recommandations était la non-réalisation d’une restadification ganglionnaire chirurgicale ou radiologique pour 25 patientes (67,6 %).

Discussion

L’applicabilité des recommandations pour la prise en charge des carcinomes de type 2 reste difficile en raison de l’âge élevé et des comorbidités des patientes notamment pour la réalisation d’une stadification chirurgicale ganglionnaire pelvienne et lombo-aortique. L’utilisation de nouvelles techniques de stadification permettrait de mieux sélectionner les indications de curages ganglionnaires.