Extended pelvic resection for gynecological malignancies: A review of out-of-the-box surgery

The Role of Pelvic Exenteration in Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Pelvic exenteration represents a radical procedure aimed at achieving complete tumor resection with negative margins. Although it is the only therapeutic option for some cases of advanced tumors, it is associated with several perioperative complications. We believe that careful patient selection is related to better oncologic outcomes and lower complication rates. The objectives of this review are to identify the most current indications for this intervention, suggest criteria for case selection, evaluate recommendations for perioperative care, and review oncologic outcomes and potential associated complications. To this end, an analysis of English language articles in PubMed was performed, searching for topics such as the indication for pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic neoplasms selection of oncologic cases, the impact of tumor size and extent on oncologic outcomes, preoperative and postoperative surgical management, surgical complications, and outcomes of overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

Laterally extended endopelvic resection for gynecological malignancies, a comparison between laparoscopic and laparotomic approach

INTRODUCTION

The historical approach to LEER is laparotomic, but recently laparoscopy has been proposed. The objective of this study was to compare surgical and oncological outcomes between the two approaches and to assess the overall quality of life (QoL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women submitted to LEER between October 2012 and March 2020 were retrospectively recruited. Peri-operative data were analyzed and compared. Recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, QLQ-CX24, and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires were administered 6 months after surgery in women with no evidence of recurrence after LEER.

RESULTS

Of the included 41 patients, 20 were submitted to laparoscopic LEER (L-LEER) and 21 to open LEER (O-LEER). Median operating time (442 vs 630 min, p = 0.001), median blood loss (275 vs 800 ml, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stays (10 vs 16 days, p = 0.002) were shorter in the laparoscopic group, while tumor resection rate and peri-operative complications were similar. After a median follow-up of 27.5 months, no differences, in terms of DFS (p = 0.83) and OS (p = 0.96) were observed between the two approaches. High functional scores and low levels of adverse symptoms were observed on the surviving women.

CONCLUSION

QoL after LEER is acceptable, and laparoscopy provides better surgical and similar oncological outcomes when compared to laparotomy. L-LEER can be considered a further option of treatment for women with gynecological tumors infiltrating the pelvic sidewall.

Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: A 15-Year Monocentric Retrospective Study

Treatment options for recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma are limited. In those cases, secondary surgical procedures such as pelvic exenteration form the only possible curative approach. The aim of this study was analyzing the outcomes of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration during the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer intending to identify prognostic factors. More than 300 pelvic exenterations were performed. Fifteen patients were selected that received pelvic exenteration for recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma. Data regarding patient characteristics, indication for surgery, complete cytoreduction, tumor grading and p53- and L1CAM-expression were collected and statistically evaluated. Univariate Cox regression was performed to identify predictive factors for long-term survival. The mean survival after pelvic exenteration for the whole patient population was 22.7 months, with the longest survival reaching up to 69 months. Overall survival was significantly longer for patients with a curative treatment intention (p = 0.015) and for patients with a well or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma (p = 0.014). Complete cytoreduction seemed favorable with a mean survival of 32 months in contrast to 10 months when complete cytoreduction was not achieved. Pelvic exenteration is a possible treatment option for a selected group of patients resulting in a mean survival of nearly two years, offering a substantial prognostic improvement.

The changing role for extended resections in an era of advanced radiotherapy techniques and novel therapies in gynaecological malignancy

Pelvic exenteration, first described in 1948 and subsequently refined, may be offered as a last hope of cure to patients with recurrent or locally advanced pelvic tumours, where radiotherapy is not an option. It is a complex, morbid, ultra-radical procedure involving en-bloc resection of the female reproductive organs, lower urinary tract, and a portion of the rectosigmoid. This article discusses the evolution of and current indications for pelvic exenteration in gynaecologic oncology as well as the reasons for its decline: primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer (the recurrence of which is the most common indication for exenteration); improvements in treatment of cervical, endometrial, vaginal and vulvar cancer in the primary and recurrent setting; and the advent of novel therapies.

Quality of life after extended pelvic exenterations

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to compare health-related quality of life (QoL) and oncological outcome between gynaecological cancer patients undergoing pelvic exenteration (PE) and extended pelvic exenteration (EPE). EPEs were defined as extensive procedures including, in addition to standard PE extent, the resection of internal, external, or common iliac vessels; pelvic side-wall muscles; large pelvic nerves (sciatic or femoral); and/or pelvic bones.

METHODS

Data from 74 patients who underwent PE (42) or EPE (32) between 2004 and 2019 at a single tertiary gynae-oncology centre in Prague were analysed. QoL assessment was performed using EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC CX-24, and QOLPEX questionnaires specifically developed for patients after (E)PE.

RESULTS

No significant differences in survival were observed between the groups (P > 0.999), with median overall and disease-specific survival in the whole cohort of 45 and 49 months, respectively. Thirty-one survivors participated in the QoL surveys (20 PE, 11 EPE). No significant differences were observed in global health status (P = 0.951) or in any of the functional scales. The groups were not differing in therapy satisfaction (P = 0.502), and both expressed similar, high willingness to undergo treatment again if they were to decide again (P = 0.317).

CONCLUSIONS

EPEs had post-treatment QoL and oncological outcome comparable to traditional PE. These procedures offer a potentially curative treatment option for patients with persistent or recurrent pelvic tumour invading into pelvic wall structures without further compromise of patients´ QoL.