A new method of surgical margin assuring for abdominal radical trachelectomy in frozen section

Endocervical Adenocarcinoma, Gross Examination, and Processing, Including Intraoperative Evaluation: Recommendations From the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists

The International Society of Gynecological Pathologists (ISGyP) Endocervical Adenocarcinoma Project aims to provide evidence-based guidance for the pathologic evaluation, classification, and reporting of endocervical adenocarcinoma. This review presents the recommendations pertaining to gross evaluation and intraoperative consultation of specimens obtained from patients in the setting of cervical cancer. The recommendations are the product of review of published peer-reviewed evidence, international guidelines and institutional grossing manuals, as well as deliberation within this working group. The discussion presented herein details the approach to the different specimen types encountered in practice: loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone, trachelectomy, radical hysterectomy, pelvic exenteration, and lymphadenectomy specimens. Guidelines for intraoperative evaluation of trachelectomy and sentinel lymph node specimens are also addressed. Correlation with ISGyP recommendations on cancer staging, which appear as a separate review in this issue, is also included when appropriate. While conceived in the framework of endocervical adenocarcinoma, most of the discussion and recommendations can also be applied to other cervical malignancies.

Fertility-Sparing Surgery in Gynecologic Cancer: A Systematic Review

Fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is increasingly being offered to women with a gynecological malignancy who wish to preserve fertility. In this systematic review, we evaluate the best evidence currently available on oncological and reproductive outcome after FSS for early stage cervical cancer, epithelial ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer. An extensive literature search was conducted using the electronic databases Medline (OVID), Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies published up to December 2020. In total, 153 studies were included with 7544, 3944, and 1229 patients who underwent FSS for cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, respectively. We assessed the different FSS techniques that are available to preserve fertility, i.e., omitting removal of the uterine body and preserving at least one ovary. Overall, recurrence rates after FSS are reassuring and therefore, these conservative procedures seem oncologically safe in the current selection of patients with low-stage and low-grade disease. However, generalized conclusions should be made with caution due to the methodology of available studies, i.e., mostly retrospective cohort studies with a heterogeneous patient population, inducing selection bias. Moreover, about half of patients do not pursue pregnancy despite FSS and the reasons for these decisions have not yet been well studied. International collaboration will facilitate the collection of solid evidence on FSS and the related decision-making process to optimize patient selection and counseling.

Radical Trachelectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

In patients with early-stage cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the gold standard. However, this disease commonly affects women of childbearing age; thus an option to spare fertility is ideal. This option came to fruition in the early 90s when the Dargent procedure or radical trachelectomy was first reported. The procedure has subsequently been modified as technology has improved and now may be performed via minimally invasive techniques. Additionally, with the advent of the sentinel lymph node procedure, the morbidity in this usually young patient population has continued to improve. There is a multitude of data to show that oncologic outcomes, concerning recurrence and mortality, are comparable to radical hysterectomy, as well as obstetrical outcomes are favorable. Data to support its acceptance within the gynecologic oncology community has led to radical trachelectomy being implemented into governing body guidelines and should be offered to appropriate candidates with early-stage cervical cancer who wish to preserve fertility.

The Survival Rate and Surgical Morbidity of Abdominal Radical Trachelectomy Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer

PURPOSE

To compare the survival rates and morbidities of abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART) to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer and to evaluate the safety of ART for tumors measuring 2-4 cm.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study to compare the outcomes of patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent ART to patients treated with ARH who met the inclusion criteria of a fertility-sparing surgery. All of the patients were treated by the same surgeon at our institution in the same period.

RESULTS

Of the 107 and 141 patients who underwent ART and ARH, respectively, 61 and 82 patients had a tumor ≥2 cm (P = NS). With a median follow-up of 30 and 49 months, 2 patients treated with ART and 3 patients treated with ARH recurred: the 5-year RFS rate was 96.5 and 94.8%, respectively, for tumors ≥2 cm (P = NS). Only 3 patients died in the ARH group: the 5-year OS rate was 100% for the ART and 94.8% for the ARH group for tumors ≥2 cm (P = NS). Incidence rates of intraoperative complications were similar in the two groups (1.9% for ART and 0.7% for ARH, P = NS). However, incidence rates of postoperative complications were higher in the ART group (36.4% for ART and 19.1% for ARH, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ART appears to have equal survival rates to ARH and can be performed safely in stage IB1 cervical cancers ≥2 cm. However, ART is associated with more postoperative morbidities compared with ARH.

Margins for cervical and vulvar cancer

Surgery is the primary treatment for vulvar cancer as well as early-stage carcinoma of the cervix. This article reviews the significance of margin status after surgery on overall survival, need for further surgical intervention, and role for possible adjuvant therapy. It summarizes the abundant literature on margin status in vulvar cancer and highlights the need for further investigation on the prognostic significance of margins in cervical cancer. In addition, it reviews other important operative considerations.