Hysteroscopic Morcellation in Endometrial Cancer Diagnosis: Increased Risk?

Metastases and Recurrence Risk Factors in Endometrial Cancer-The Role of Selected Molecular Changes, Hormonal Factors, Diagnostic Methods and Surgery Procedures

The presence of metastatic endometrial cancer (EC) is a key problem in treatment failure associated with reduced overall survival rates. The most common metastatic location is the pelvic lymph nodes, and the least common is the brain. The presence of metastasis depends on many factors, including the molecular profile of cancer (according to the TCGA-Genome Atlas), the activity of certain hormones (estrogen, prolactin), and pro-inflammatory adipocytokines. Additionally, an altered expression of microRNAs affecting the regulation of numerous genes is also related to the spread of cancer. This paper also discusses the value of imaging methods in detecting metastases; the primary role is attributed to the standard transvaginal USG with the tumor-free distance (uTFD) option. The influence of diagnostic and therapeutic methods on EC spread is also described. Hysteroscopy, according to the analysis discussed above, may increase the risk of metastases through a fluid medium, mainly performed in advanced stages of EC. According to another analysis, laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with particular attention to avoiding risky procedures (trocar flushing, tissue traumatization, preserving a margin of normal tissue) was not found to increase the risk of EC dissemination.

OS and DFS are affected by different diagnostic methods and hysterectomy procedures in endometrial cancer patients: A single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate whether hysteroscopy increases the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination or worsens the prognosis of endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients and whether radical hysterectomy (RH) improves overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage II to III EC and to investigate the effects of different procedures for identifying EC and the effects of different surgical methods on the OS and DFS of endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

Four hundred sixty-five women with EC were included in this retrospective study. Log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used for the outcome comparisons of the effects of the EC diagnostic method and different hysterectomy procedures. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among the three procedures for diagnosing EC (diagnostic curettage, hysteroscopy, and hysterectomy), the incidences of fallopian tube and ovarian invasion were not significantly different (p = 0.506 and 0.066, respectively). The diagnostic methods for EC had no significant effect on OS (p = 0.577) or DFS (p = 0.294). In addition, type II RH and type III RH did not improve the prognosis of patients with FIGO stage II and III disease (log-rank p = 0.914 and 0.810 for OS; log-rank p = 0.707 and 0.771 for DFS, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current study evidence, the use of diagnostic hysteroscopy procedures is safe and does not increase the risk of fallopian tube and ovarian invasion of intraperitoneal dissemination or worsen the prognosis of EC patients. Type II and type III RH did not demonstrate a benefit for stage II-III EC patients.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background: The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment. Objectives: To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Materials and Methods: ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. Results: The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues. Conclusions: These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Hum Reprod Open 2023;2023:hoac057. [PMID: 36756380 PMCID: PMC9900425 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac057]

STUDY QUESTION

How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma, consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive information on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment.A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment (patient selection, tumor clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, special issues) in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE 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 (11 experts from across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified by 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE Guidelines for the fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma

Background

The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma (EC) consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in EC in a multidisciplinary setting. While also addressing work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility sparing treatment.

Objectives

To define recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of EC (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, 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 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.

Results

The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations for fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma in four sections: patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery, and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. What is new? A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE, aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Malignant peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer: a contemporary review

INTRODUCTION

: In endometrial cancer, malignant peritoneal cytology (MPC) refers to the presence of tumor cells in the peritoneal cytologic specimen obtained at hysterectomy. MPC was once a component of uterine cancer staging criteria, but it is no longer included in the current revision. Multiple societies and organizations, however, continue to recommend peritoneal cytologic testing at the time of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

AREAS COVERED

This contemporary review provides a clinical summary of recent studies evaluating MPC, including risk factors and prognosis. Compared to prior studies showing a lack of impact on oncologic outcome, recent studies have larger sample sizes, use stricter inclusion criteria, and perform histology/cancer stage-specific analyses to balance risk factors and provide explicit interpretations for oncologic outcomes related to MPC. These newer data provide evidence that MPC does have a prognostic impact.

EXPERT OPINION

Three key domains related to MPC are followings: First, recognition of MPC as a prognostic factor for endometrial cancer irrespective to stage (early and advanced) and histology (endometrioid and non-endometrioid) is necessary. Second, peritoneal cytologic testing at the beginning of each staging surgery is recommended. Last, incorporation of peritoneal cytology status in adjuvant treatment algorithms is useful and merits further development.

Controversy on Positive Peritoneal Cytology of Endometrial Carcinoma

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies. Its incidence rate has been increasing year by year. The prognostic factors and treatment strategies of EC have aroused wide concern. The effects of peritoneal cytology on the prognosis and treatment of EC remain controversial. Some factors, such as differentiation degree, muscle invasion, and tumor size, are related to positive peritoneal cytology. Hysteroscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial cancer, but hysteroscopic surgery may cause the tumor to spread into the abdominal cavity, resulting in positive peritoneal cytology. In this review, we discuss the factors related to positive peritoneal cytology and the influence of positive peritoneal cytology on the prognosis of endometrial cancer. Suspicious positive peritoneal cytology may be an independent risk factor for endometrial cancer. The positive rate of peritoneal tumor cells in type II endometrial cancer is higher than other cells and is an independent risk factor for type II endometrial cancer. We also discuss the effects of peritoneal cytology on treatment decisions. Aggressive treatments seem to be more beneficial for patients with positive ascites cytology, but there is a lack of large-scale prospective clinical studies on their effectiveness and safety. The application of peritoneal cytology for endometrial cancer has been decreased in recent years. We believe that peritoneal cytology is necessary for this type of cancer. However, more studies on peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer should be carried out.

Correlation between pre-operative diagnosis and final pathological diagnosis of endometrial malignancies; impact on primary surgical treatment

OBJECTIVES

to compare the accuracy of preoperative and postoperative endometrial sampling obtained by dilatation and curettage (D&C), Pipelle and hysteroscopy to diagnose endometrial malignancies and to evaluate the adequacy of surgical treatment for these patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective record-based study was conducted at Gynecology Oncology Unit, Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. Records of patients with an initial preoperative or a final postoperative pathological diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial malignancies were retrieved over a six year period from January 2013 until March 2019. The preoperative biopsy methods, results, postoperative pathology diagnosis and treatment received were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Records of 395 patients were retrieved. Rates of agreement between initial and postoperative pathology for endometrial hyperplasia (with and without atypia) were 10% by D&C, 7.8% by Pipelle and zero % by hysteroscopy; for endometrioid adenocarcinoma grade 1, they were 40.7% by D&C, 40.6% by Pipelle and 20% by hysteroscopy; for endometrioid adenocarcinoma grades 2 and 3, they were 83.7% and 84.6% by D&C, 97% and 60% by Pipelle, and 100% by hysteroscopy, respectively. For type II endometrial cancer and endometrial stromal sarcoma, agreement rates were 100% by all biopsy methods. Out of 13 cases diagnosed with atrophic endometrium preoperatively, 11 cases were diagnosed as endometrial stromal sarcoma. Comparing accuracy of the three biopsy methods, D&C had highest sensitivity of 61.9%; hysteroscopy showed 100% specificity, while Pipelle was the least accurate method. Finally, 61.4% of the patients received adequate surgical treatment.

CONCLUSION

There were excellent concordance rates between initial biopsy and postoperative pathology in diagnosis of high grade endometrioid and other endometrial malignancies compared to endometrial hyperplasia and low grade endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Patients diagnosed initially with atrophic endometrium or hyperplasia warranted more surveillance before their surgical treatment. It is crucial to develop protocols for increasing accuracy of endometrial sampling such as performing molecular studies for preoperative pathology.