Minimally Invasive Approach in Type II Endometrial Cancer: Is It Wise and Safe?

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.

Impact of Robotic Assistance on Minimally Invasive Surgery for Type II Endometrial Cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis

The objective of this study is to compare the overall survival (OS) and surgical outcomes between conventional laparoscopy and robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in women with type II endometrial cancer. We identified a large cohort of women who underwent hysterectomy for type II endometrial cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The primary outcome was to compare the OS of conventional laparoscopy versus RAL. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rate, 90-day mortality, rates of lymph node retrieval, rates of node positivity, and rates of conversion to laparotomy. Cohorts were compared and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine characteristics with statistically significant predictors of outcome. We identified 7168 patients with stage I-III type II endometrial cancer who had minimally invasive surgery as primary treatment between 2010 and 2014. A total of 5074 patients underwent RAL. Women who underwent RAL were less likely to have stage III disease (26.4% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.008) and had smaller primary tumors (4.6 vs. 4.1 cm, p < 0.001). In a multivariable model, there was no difference in OS between conventional laparoscopy and RAL. With regard to postoperative outcomes, RAL was associated with a decreased risk for conversion to laparotomy (2.7% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), a shorter hospital stay (1 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), a decreased 90-day mortality (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.004), and an increased number of lymph nodes sampled (14 vs. 12, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, the use of RAL was independently associated with a reduced rate of conversion to laparotomy. In conclusion, there was no difference in OS between conventional laparoscopy and RAL in type II endometrial cancer in a large retrospective cohort of patients from the NCDB. RAL was associated with a decreased risk of conversion to laparotomy.

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 Minimally Invasive and Open Surgery for the Treatment of Endometrial Cancer with a High Risk of Recurrence: A Propensity Score Matching Study in Korea and Taiwan

BACKGROUND

This study compared oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery for the treatment of endometrial cancer with a high risk of recurrence.

METHODS

This study included patients with endometrial cancer who underwent primary surgery at two tertiary centers in Korea and Taiwan. Low-grade advanced-stage endometrial cancer (endometrioid grade 1 or 2) or endometrial cancer with aggressive histology (endometrioid grade 3 or non-endometrioid) at any stage was considered to have a high risk of recurrence. We conducted 1:1 propensity score matching between the MIS and open surgery groups to adjust for the baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the total of 582 patients, 284 patients were included in analysis after matching. Compared with open surgery, MIS did not show a difference in disease-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.77, P = 0.717] or overall survival (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36-1.24, P = 0.198). In the multivariate analysis, non-endometrioid histology, tumor size, tumor cytology, depth of invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion were risk factors for recurrence. There was no association between the surgical approach and either recurrence or mortality in the subgroup analysis according to stage and histology.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS did not compromise survival outcomes for patients with endometrial cancer with a high risk of recurrence when compared with open surgery.

Minimally Invasive Compared With Open Surgery in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A cohort study of all patients who underwent surgery for high-risk endometrial cancer between 1999 and 2016 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) and a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus of all published studies until December 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The systematic review identified 2,332 patients (14 studies, all retrospective except a subanalysis of a randomized comparison) and the cohort study identified 542 additional patients. Articles were included if reporting original data on overall survival and disease-free survival among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer, defined as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, mixed histology, or uterine carcinosarcoma. Studies that did not report at least one of the main outcomes, those in which one surgical technique (robotic or laparoscopic surgery) was missing in the comparison analysis with open surgery, and case reports were excluded. Additional data were extracted from a retrospective cohort of patients from Mayo. A random-effect model was used for meta-analysis.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO. Literature search and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, as well as quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Meta-analysis showed that disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery were not statistically different from those of patients who underwent open abdominal surgery (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.05, I2 20%, P=.23; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.11, I2 31%, P=.12, respectively). Subgroup analysis by stage (early vs advanced) did not identify a difference between surgical approaches.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery and open surgery had similar disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021275535.

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.

Prognosis and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery on Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma: Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The prognosis and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LPS) and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients were compared.

Methods

Data as of May 2021 were retrieved from databases like PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The study involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or case-control studies for comparing the effects of LPS and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on EC treatment. The primary outcomes included duration of operation, blood loss, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate/disease-free survival (DFS) rate and 3-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

A total of 24 studies were involved, and all of them were cohort studies except 1 RCT and 1 case-control study. There was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery (MD = −0.06, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.25) or RS (MD = −0.15, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.96). In comparison with the open surgery, LPS remarkably reduced blood loss (MD = −0.43, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.29), LOS (MD = −0.71, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.50), and the complication occurrence rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.95). However, LPS and RS saw no difference in blood loss (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.79). Besides, in comparison with RS, LPS prominently shortened the LOS (MD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.40) but increased the complication occurrence rate (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.57 to 1.92). In contrast to open surgery or RS, LPS saw no difference in occurrence rate (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01; RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.53), 3-year PFS/DFS (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.96), and 3-year OS (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.04; RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.60).

Conclusion

In sum, LPS was better than open surgery, which manifested in the aspects of less blood loss, shorter LOS, and fewer complications. LPS, therefore, was the most suitable option for EC patients. Nevertheless, LPS had no advantage over RS, and sufficient prospective RCTs are needed to further confirm its strengths.

Survival after laparoscopy versus laparotomy for apparent early-stage uterine clear cell carcinoma: Results of a large multicenter cohort study

Objective

To compare the long-term survival between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in patients with apparent early-stage uterine clear cell carcinoma (UCCC).

Patients and methods

254 patients with apparent early-stage UCCC were reviewed. Comparisons were made between patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery versus those who underwent open surgery. Baseline data, clinicopathological data, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate were estimated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to control the confounding factors.

Results

147 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 107 patients were managed by open surgery. No differences in terms of recurrence rate (laparoscopy versus laparotomy: 10.9% versus 12.9%, P=0.842) and recurrence pattern were observed. For patients who underwent open surgery and patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, the 5-year DFS rates and 5-year OS rate were 75.8% (95% CI: 65.8%-83.2%) and 69.1% (95% CI: 58.8%-77.4%), 66.0% (95% CI: 57.1%-73.5%) and 60.8% (95% CI: 52.0%-68.5%), respectively. The Cox proportional hazards regression model shown that for apparent early-stage UCCC, the approach of surgical staging was not an independent predictor for survival (laparoscopy versus laparotomy: for DFS, aHR=1.06, 95% CI=0.64-1.75, P=0.826; for OS, aHR=1.10, 95% CI=0.72-1.68, P=0.671).

Conclusion

For apparent early-stage UCCC, in terms of oncological survival, laparoscopic surgery was as safe as open surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in high-risk histologic endometrial cancer patients: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OPS) on the risk of recurrence and mortality in patients with endometrial cancer (EC) of high-risk histology (grade 3 endometrioid adenocarcinoma, papillary serous carcinoma [PS], clear cell carcinoma [CC], and carcinosarcoma) using meta-analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed published studies comparing MIS and OPS in EC patients with high-risk histology until January 2022. The endpoints were recurrence and mortality rate. Study design features that may have affected participant selection, recurrence/death detection, and manuscript publication were assessed. For pooled estimates of the effect of MIS on recurrence/mortality, the random- or fixed-effects meta-analytical models were used after assessing the cross-study heterogeneity.

RESULT

Nine observational studies (eight retrospective and one prospective) fulfilled our search criteria (MIS, 8877 patients; OPS, 5751 patients). The fixed-effects model-based meta-analysis indicated that MIS did not significantly increase the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.05; p = 0.13) and mortality (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93; p < 0.001) when compared with OPS. This pattern was also observed in the subgroup analyses based on the stage (early stage vs. all stage), histology (PS and CC), and MIS type (laparoscopy vs. robotic). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies revealed that MIS did not compromise the prognosis of EC patients with high-risk histology. Well-designed randomized controlled trials could verify the results of this uncommon but deadly tumor.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

Survival Analysis in Endometrial Carcinomas by Type of Surgical Approach: A Matched-Pair Study

Simple Summary

We carried out a retrospective cohort study of 1382 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer (EC). A total of 684 (49.5%) were operated on by minimally invasive surgery (MIS), 233 (34%) by robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), 451 (66%) by conventional laparoscopy (LPS), and 698 (50.5%) by open surgery (OP). Disease-free (DFS), overall (OS), and specific survival related to EC (SS) outcomes were significantly higher for MIS compared to OP. When matched by age, BMI, co-morbidities, ASA score, histological type, grade, myometrial invasion, and FIGO stage, the DFS, OS, and SS amounts were similar between the MIS and OP groups. The surgical approach for women with EC does not impact disease-free or overall survival amounts when matched by homogeneous groups, but laparoscopy seems to offer a higher specific overall survival rate compared to the open surgery approach.

Abstract

(1) Background: This study aimed to analyze the impact of surgical approach on survival rates in women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. (2) Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort of 1382 women diagnosed with EC was performed. A total of 684 (49.5%) women underwent minimally invasive surgery, 233 (34%) underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), 451 (66%) underwent conventional laparoscopy (LPS), and 698 (50.5%) underwent open surgery (OP). Sociodemographic features, tumor characteristics, and survival rates were analyzed in the whole sample and in a matched-pair model. (3) Results: Women operated on by OP were significantly older, presented more comorbidities, and had more aggressive tumors. Disease-free (DFS), overall (OS), and specific survival related to EC (SS) amounts were significantly higher for MIS compared to OP (p < 0.001). When matched by age, body mass index, comorbidities, ASA score, histological type, grade, myometrial invasion, and FIGO stage, 798 patients were selected. DFS, OS, and SS amounts were similar between the MIS and OP groups. (4) Conclusions: The surgical approach for women with EC does not impact DFS or OS amounts when matched by homogeneous groups.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care.

OBJECTIVE

In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need for a systematic assessment of surgical morbidity and oncologic outcome as well as standardized and comprehensive documentation of surgical and pathological elements. Each QI was associated with a score. An assessment form including a scoring system was built as basis for ESGO accreditation of centers for endometrial cancer surgery.

Is minimally invasive surgery for clinical stage I uterine carcinosarcoma safe?

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been a mainstay of the surgical management of uterine cancer since the mid-2000s. We aim to determine the role and safety of MIS in women with uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). An Institutional Review Board-approved study identified all patients with UCS between January 2011 and December 2017 at our institution. Demographic and outcome measures were abstracted from the medical records and tumor registry. Cox proportional hazard models, log rank tests, and comparisons of means were used to calculate significance (p < 0.05). 129 women with UCS were identified during the study period. 62 cases (48%) were open procedures and 67 cases (52%) were MIS with the majority of the MIS group having robotic surgery. 55% of the patients had pathological stage 1 disease. Thirty-eight percent of UCS tumors were heterologous. 93% of patients received adjuvant therapy in the form of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. There was no difference in the recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) between the open surgery and the MIS groups as well as between the heterologous and homologous UCS groups (p > 0.05). UCS represents a rare and aggressive subtype of endometrial cancer. Our data suggest that MIS is a safe surgical approach for staging in women with UCS.

Could the Long-Term Oncological Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery in Low-Risk Endometrial Cancer also Be Valid for the High-Intermediate- and High-Risk Patients? A Multi-Center Turkish Gynecologic Oncology Group Study Conducted with 2745 Endometrial Cancer Cases. (TRSGO-End-001)

This study was conducted to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of laparotomy and laparoscopic surgeries in endometrial cancer under the light of the 2016 ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification system, with particular focus on the high–intermediate- and high-risk categories. Using multicentric databases between January 2005 and January 2016, disease-free and overall survivals of 2745 endometrial cancer cases were compared according to the surgery route (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy). The high–intermediate- and high-risk patients were defined with respect to the 2016 ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classification system, and they were analyzed with respect to differences in survival rates. Of the 2745 patients, 1743 (63.5%) were operated by laparotomy, and the remaining were operated with laparoscopy. The total numbers of high–intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer cases were 734 (45%) patients in the laparotomy group and 307 (30.7%) patients in the laparoscopy group. Disease-free and overall survivals were not statistically different when compared between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups in terms of low-, intermediate-, high–intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer. In conclusion, regardless of the endometrial cancer risk category, long-term oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic approach were found to be comparable to those treated with laparotomy. Our results are encouraging to consider laparoscopic surgery for high–intermediate- and high-risk endometrial cancer cases.

Oncologic safety of minimally invasive surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery with the outcomes of patients who underwent open surgery.

METHOD

This is a retrospective, multi-institutional study of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who were surgically staged by either minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. Oncologic outcomes of the patients were compared according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

113 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 57 underwent minimally invasive surgery and 56 underwent open surgery. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery had smaller tumors (median size, 3.3 vs. 5.2%, p = 0.0001) and a lower lymphovascular space invasion rate (29.8% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.045). In the overall population, the numbers and rate of recurrence were significantly higher in the open surgery group (p = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, disease stage and tumor size were associated with DFS in contrast to surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery showed similar survival outcomes when compared to open surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer patients, irrespective of disease stage. When minimally invasive surgery is managed by expert surgeons, non-endometrioid histological subtypes should not be considered a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

Minimally invasive surgery for patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer

Objective: Compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer who were staged by minimally invasive surgery with the outcomes of patients who underwent open surgery. Methods: Data from 138 patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer who were treated between January 2009 and January 2019 were reviewed. The patients' data were retrieved from five institutions. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent open surgery and those who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared according to surgical approach. Results: Among the 138 patients included in this study, 72 underwent open surgery (52.2%) and 66 underwent MIS (47.8%). In patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer, the recurrence rate was significantly higher among those who underwent open surgery (43.1% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.033). Patients with advanced-stage endometrial cancer who underwent open surgery had a significantly lower disease-free survival (p = 0.029) than those who underwent minimally invasive surgery, however, the overall survival (p = 0.051) was similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery showed better survival outcomes when compared to open surgery in advanced-stage EC patients irrespective of the histologic type.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer staging: large retrospective single-institution study

Objective

The aim of this study is to analyze and draw the potential differences between the robotic-assisted surgery (RS) and the laparoscopy (LPS) in endometrial cancer staging.

Methods

In this single-institution retrospective study we enrolled 1,221 consecutive clinical stage I–III endometrial cancer patients undergone minimally invasive surgical staging. We compared patients treated by LPS and by RS, on the basis of perioperative and oncological outcomes (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]). A sub-analysis of the high-risk endometrial cancer population was performed in the 2 cohorts.

Results

The 2 cohorts (766 treated by LPS and 455 by RS) were homogeneous in terms of perioperative and pathological data. We recorded differences in number of relapse/progression (11.7% in LPS vs. 7% in RS, p=0.008) and in number of deaths (9.8% in LPS vs. 4.8% in RS, p=0.002). Whereas, univariate and multivariate analyses according to DFS and OS confirmed that the surgical approach did not influence the DFS or the OS. In the multivariable analysis the association of the age and grading was significant for DFS and OS. In the sub-analysis of the 426 high risk EC patients (280 in LPS and 146 in RS) the univariate and the multivariate confirmed the influence of the age in DFS and OS, independently of the minimally invasive approach.

Conclusions

In our large retrospective analysis, we confirmed that the RS and LPS have similar efficacy and safety for endometrial cancer staging also for the high-risk endometrial cancer patients.

The effect of surgical approach on the outcomes and prognosis of high-risk histologic endometrioid carcinomas

Background

High-risk histologic endometrioid carcinomas include poorly differentiated endometrial carcinoma (PDEC), uterine clear cell carcinoma (UCCC), uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS), and uterine papillary serous carcinomas (UPCS). The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the effect of open surgery and minimally invasive surgery on the prognosis of patients with high-risk endometrial cancer tissue types.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted to investigate 57 UCS or UPCS, 53 UCCC, and 110 PDEC patients receiving initial treatment at the Department of Gynecology in Shaanxi Provincial Tumor hospital and the Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University between February 2010 and January 2015. Prognostic factors were determined using univariate/multivariate analysis, and survival rates were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox regression model was adopted to assess the independent prognostic factors.

Results

Two hundred and twenty patients who met the criteria were included in this study. At the end of follow-up period, 94 patients were still alive. Univariate analysis found that the survival time of the patients was related to staging, adjuvant therapy, and surgical approach. Multivariate analysis revealed that surgical approach, staging, pathology, and adjuvant therapy were independent prognostic factors.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive surgery has a shorter survival time compared to open surgery in women with PDEC, UCCC, UCS, and UPCS. Multivariate analysis confirmed that staging, pathological type, surgical approach, and postoperative adjuvant therapy are independent risk factors for prognosis and affect the survival of women with PDEC, UCCC, UCS, and UPCS.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Oncologic outcomes for patients with endometrial cancer who received minimally invasive surgery: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hysterectomy has been performed for patients with endometrial cancer as minimally invasive surgery; however, the long-term outcomes of high-risk disease compared to open surgery remain unclear.

METHODS

Eight hundred and eighty-three patients with endometrial cancer who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal hysterectomy were categorized into three groups. Low-risk disease was defined as stage IA disease with endometrioid carcinoma of grade 1 or 2. Uterine-confined disease was defined as stage IA disease with high-grade tumors or stage IB and II disease. Advanced disease was defined as stage III or IV disease. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared between laparoscopic and laparotomic hysterectomy.

RESULTS

Among 478 patients with low-risk disease, including 226 with laparoscopy and 252 with laparotomy, the prognosis was not significantly different between the groups (3-year PFS rate, 97.4% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.8; 3-year OS rate, 98.6% vs. 98.3%, p = 0.9). Among the 229 patients with uterine-confined disease, including 51 with laparoscopy and 178 with laparotomy, the prognosis was not significantly different between the groups (3-year PFS rate, 90.5% vs. 85.5%, p = 0.7; 3-year OS rate, 91.3% vs. 92.5%, p = 0.8). Among the 176 patients with advanced disease, including 24 with laparoscopy and 152 with laparotomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy had a higher PFS rate and OS rate than laparotomic hysterectomy (3-year PFS rate, 74.5% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.01; 3-year OS rate, 92.3% vs. 75.1%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic procedures are not associated with a poorer outcome than laparotomy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer or uterine-confined endometrial cancer.

Robot-assisted surgery for women with endometrial cancer: Surgical and oncologic outcomes within a Belgium gynaecological oncology group cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients treated by robot-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer within the Belgium Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG).

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective analysis of women with clinically Stage I endometrial cancer who underwent surgical treatment from 2007 to 2018 in five institutions of the BGOG group.

RESULTS

A total of 598 consecutive women were identified. The rate of conversion to laparotomy was low (0.8%). The mean postoperative Complication Common Comprehensive Index (CCI) score was 3.4. The rate of perioperative complications did not differ between age groups, however the disease-free survival was significantly lower in patients over 75 years compared to patients under 65 years of age (p=0.008). Per-operative complications, conversion to laparotomy rate, post-operative hospital stay, CCI score and disease-free survival were not impacted by increasing BMI.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for the surgical treatment of patients suffering from early-stage endometrial cancer is associated with favourable surgical and oncologic outcomes, particularly for unfavourable groups such as elderly and obese women, thus permitting a low morbidity minimally-invasive surgical approach for the majority of patients in expert centres.

Role of minimally invasive surgery versus open approach in patients with early-stage uterine carcinosarcomas: a retrospective multicentric study

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare surgical and survival outcome in only patients with early-stage UCSs managed by laparotomic surgery (LPT) versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

Methods

Data were retrospectively collected in four Italian different institutions. Inclusion criteria were UCS diagnosis confirmed by the definitive histological examination, and stage I or II according to the FIGO staging system.

Results

Between August 2000 and March 2019, the data relative to 170 patients bearing UCSs were collected: of these, 95 were defined as early-stage disease (stage I–II) based on the histological report at the primary surgery, and thus were included in this study. Forty-four patients were managed by LPT, and 51 patients were managed by MIS. The operative time was lower in the MIS group versus the LPT group (p value 0.021); the median estimated blood loss was less in the MIS group compared to the median of LPT group (p value < 0.0001). The length of hospital stay days was shorter in the MIS patients (p value < 0.0001). Overall, there were eight (8.4%) post-operative complications; of these, seven were recorded in the LPT group versus one in the MIS group (p value 0.023). There was no difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.

Conclusion

There was no difference of oncologic outcome between the two approaches, in face of a more favourable peri-operative and post-operative profile in the MIS group.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for stage I high-grade endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for stage I high grade endometrial cancer. We hypothesized that route of surgery is not associated with survival.

MATERIALS

Patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, with stage I grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell and carcinosarcoma endometrial carcinoma, who underwent hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy were drawn from the National Cancer Database. Patients converted to open surgery were excluded. Overall survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with the log-rank test. A Cox model was constructed to control for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 12852 patients were identified. The rate of minimally invasive surgery was 62.2%. An increase in the use between 2010 and 2014 was noted (p < 0.001). Open surgery was associated with longer hospital stay (median 3 vs 1 day, p < 0.001), higher 30-day unplanned re-admission rate (4.5% vs 2.4%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (0.6% vs 0.3%, p = 0.008). There was no difference in overall survival between patients who had open or minimally invasive surgery, p = 0.22; 3-yr overall survival rates were 83.7% and 84.4% respectively. After controlling for patient age, tumor histology, substage, type of insurance, type of reporting facility, receipt of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, extent of lymphadenectomy, the presence of comorbidities and personal history of another tumor, minimally invasive surgery was not associated with a worse survival (hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.97, 1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for patients with stage I high grade endometrial cancer, was associated with superior short-term outcomes with no difference in overall survival noted.

Uterine Papillary Serous Carcinoma Arising in a Polyp: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis on 75 Patients

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the international recommendations on the management of uterine papillary serous carcinoma arising in a polyp are uniformly followed in Italian Oncologic Centers and whether the strategy adopted is effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with uterine papillary serous carcinoma arising in a polyp and who had undergone a hysterectomy were identified in the 2003-2013 database of 7 Italian Gynecologic Oncology Centers. Clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomes were compared between staging procedure types. Survival curves of the women were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed using Cox regression hazard model and the log-rank test. Associations between clinical parameters and the incidence of recurrence were assessed by generalized linear models and the Fisher test.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients met the inclusion criteria. Recurrence-free survival was affected positively by type of surgical staging and negatively by preoperative diagnosis of hypertension. The association between surgical staging and recurrence-free survival resulted significant at univariate survival analysis (P=0.048 and 0.045) and maintained a trend of significance (P=0.070) in multivariate analysis, whereas hypertension was demonstrated to be the principal influencing factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The international recommendations on the management of uterine papillary serous carcinoma are not uniformly followed in daily practice, although the extension of the surgery seems to be associated with lower recurrence rates also when uterine papillary serous carcinoma is confined to a polyp or endometrial surface.

Minimally invasive surgery does not impair overall survival in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate weather survival is impaired in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients treated with minimally invasive surgery as compared to laparotomy.

METHODS

We analyzed surgical data and oncologic outcome of histologically proven stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients who were treated at our institution via laparotomy or via laparoscopic surgery. All the patients underwent a systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and a complete tumor resection. Perioperative morbidity and overall survival of the patients subjected to the two surgical approaches were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer were identified. Of these, 15 patients were operated via laparotomy and 51 via laparoscopy. The two groups were similar with regards to median age at diagnosis, BMI, histotype, number of affected lymph nodes, and median maximal diameter of the affected lymph nodes. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had fewer perioperative complications, a smaller estimated blood loss, and were subjected less frequently to transfusions. Overall survival at 60 months of follow-up did not differ between the two groups. At uni- and multivariate analysis, surgical approach did not affect survival. Only age was a variable associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery has better perioperative outcomes and does not impair survival in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients. Age at diagnosis is the only factor independently affecting survival.

Identification of key genes and pathways between type I and type II endometrial cancer using bioinformatics analysis

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is a common malignant neoplasm of the female reproductive tract. The malignant degree of type II EC is much greater than that of type I EC, usually presenting with a high recurrence rate and a poor prognosis. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the principal genes associated with the degree of differentiation in type I and type II EC and reveal their potential mechanisms. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were selected from the gene expression profiles derived from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses were conducted. In the present study, the KEGG pathway enrichment analysis revealed that 5,962 upregulated DEGs were significantly enriched in the ‘p53 signaling pathway’ and involved in ‘lysine degradation’. In addition, 3,709 downregulated DEGs were enriched in ‘pathways in cancer’, as well as ‘tight junction regulation’, the ‘cell cycle’ and the ‘Wnt signaling pathway’. The 13 top hub genes MAPK1, PHLPP1, ESR1, MDM2, CDKN2A, CDKN1A, AURKA, BCL2L1, POLQ, PIK3R3, RHOQ, EIF4E and LATS2 were identified via the protein-protein interaction network. Furthermore, the OncoPrint algorithm from cBioPortal declared that 25% of EC cases carried genetic alterations. The altered DEGs (MAPK1, MDM2, AURKA, EIF4E and LATS2) may be involved in tumor differentiation and may be valuable diagnostic biomarkers. In conclusion, a number of principal genes were identified in the present study that may be determinants of poorly differentiated type II EC carcinogenesis, which may contribute to future research into potential molecular mechanisms. In addition, these genes may help identify candidate biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets for type II EC.