Clinical outcomes of pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies

Imaging in pelvic exenteration-a multidisciplinary practice guide from the ESGAR-SAR-ESUR-PelvEx collaborative group

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical approach designed for the curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies, requiring en-bloc resection of multiple pelvic organs. While the procedure is radical, it has shown promise in enhancing long-term survival and is now comparable in surgical mortality to elective resections for primary pelvic cancers. Imaging plays a crucial role in preoperative planning, with MRI, CT, and PET/CT being pivotal in assessing the extent of cancer and formulating a surgical roadmap. This paper presents clinical practice guidelines for imaging in the context of PE, developed jointly by ESGAR, SAR, ESUR, and the PelvEx Collaborative. These guidelines aim to standardize imaging protocols and reporting to improve the preoperative assessment and facilitate decision-making in the multidisciplinary treatment of pelvic cancers. Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. KEY POINTS: MRI is mandatory for local staging in pelvic exenteration. Structured reporting (using the template provided in this guide) is recommended. Multidisciplinary review of imaging is critical for surgical planning.

Perioperative outcomes in gynecologic pelvic exenteration before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program

OBJECTIVES

To compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before and after implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.

METHODS

We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before (1/1/2006-12/30/2014) and after (1/1/2015-6/30/2023) ERAS implementation. We described ERAS compliance rates. We compared outcomes up to 60 days post-exenteration. Complication grades were defined by the Clavien-Dindo system.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 women underwent pelvic exenteration; 74 (70.4%) in the pre-ERAS and 31 (29.5%) in the ERAS cohorts. There were no differences between cohorts in age, body mass index, race, primary disease site, type of exenteration, urinary diversion, or vaginal reconstruction. All patients had complications, with at least one grade II+ complication in 94.6% of pre-ERAS and 90.3% of ERAS patients. The ERAS cohort had more grade I-II gastrointestinal (61.3% vs 21.6%, p < 0.001) and hematologic (61.3% vs 36.5%, p = 0.030) and grade III-IV renal (29.0% vs 12.2%, p = 0.048) and wound (45.2% vs 18.9%, p = 0.008) complications compared to the pre-ERAS cohort. ERAS patients had a higher rate of ileus (38.7% vs 10.8%, p = 0.002), urinary leak (22.6% vs 5.4%, p = 0.014), pelvic abscess (35.5% vs 10.8%, p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding requiring intervention (61.3% vs 28.4%, p = 0.002), and readmission (71.4% vs 46.5%, p = 0.025). Median ERAS compliance was 60%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration remains a morbid procedure, and complications were more common in ERAS compared to pre-ERAS cohorts. ERAS protocols should be optimized and tailored to the complexity of pelvic exenteration compared to standard gynecologic oncology ERAS pathways.

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.

Use of Rectus Flaps in Reconstructive Surgery for Gynecologic Cancer

The aim of this study was to explore the outcomes of pelvic reconstruction with a rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) or rectus abdominis myoperitoneal (RAMP) flap following radical surgery for gynecologic malignancy. This is a retrospective case series of all pelvic reconstructions with RAM or RAMP flap performed in a gynecologic oncology service between 1998 and 2023. Reconstructions with other flaps were excluded. A total of 28 patients were included. Most patients had vulvar cancer (n = 15, 53.6%) and the majority had disease recurrence (n = 20, 71.4%). Exenteration was the most common procedure, being carried out in 20 (71.4%) patients. Pelvic reconstruction was carried out with a RAM flap in 24 (85.7%) cases and a RAMP flap in 4 (14.3%) cases. Flap-specific complications included cellulitis (14.3%), partial breakdown (17.9%), and necrosis (17.9%). Donor site complications included surgical site infection and necrosis occurring in seven (25.0%) and three (10.7%) patients, respectively. Neovaginal reconstruction was performed in 14 patients. Out of those, two (14.3%) had neovaginal stenosis and three (21.4%) had rectovaginal fistula. In total, 50% of patients were disease-free at the time of the last follow up. In conclusion, pelvic reconstruction with RAM/RAMP flaps, at the time of radical surgery for gynecologic cancer, is an uncommon procedure. In our case series, we had a significant complication rate with the most common being infection and necrosis. The development of a team approach, with input from services including Gynecologic Oncology and Plastic Surgery should be developed to decrease post-operative complications and improve patient outcomes.