Indications, techniques and outcomes for pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancy

Long-term outcomes of pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recently, with the advancement of medical technology, the postoperative morbidity of pelvic exenteration (PE) has gradually decreased, and it has become a curative treatment option for some patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies. However, more evidence is still needed to support its efficacy. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term survival outcome of PE and the feasibility of umbilical single-port laparoscopic PE for gynecologic malignancies in a single medical center in China.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PE for gynecological cancers except for ovarian cancer conducted by a single surgical team in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between July 2014 and December 2019 were included and the data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-one cases were included and median age at diagnosis was 53 years. Cervical cancer accounted for 87.8% of all cases, and most of them received prior treatment (95.1%). Sixteen procedures were performed in 2016 and before, and 25 after 2016. Three anterior PE were performed by umbilical single-site laparoscopy. The median operation time was 460 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 600 ml. There was no perioperative death. The years of the operations was significantly associated with the length of the operation time (P = 0.0018). The overall morbidity was 52.4%, while the severe complications rate was 19.0%. The most common complication was pelvic and abdominal infection. The years of surgery was also significantly associated with the occurrence of severe complication (P = 0.040). The median follow-up time was 55.8 months. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.9 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 25.3 months. The 5-year DFS was 28.5%, and the 5-year OS was 30.8%.

CONCLUSION

PE is safe for patient who is selected by a multi-disciplinary treatment, and can be a curative treatment for some patients. PE demands a high level of experience from the surgical team. Umbilical single-port laparoscopy was a technically feasible approach for APE, meriting further investigation.

Predictive factors of surgical complications after pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: a large single-institution experience

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pre-operative predictors of early (<30 days) severe complications (grade Dindo 3+) in patients with gynecological malignancy submitted to pelvic exenteration (PE).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 129 patients submitted to surgery at Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli between 2010 and 2019. We included patients affected by primary or recurrent/persistent cervical, endometrial, or vulvar/vaginal cancers. Post-operative complications were graded according to the Dindo classification. Logistic regression was used to analyze potential predictors of complications.

RESULTS

We performed 63 anterior PE, 10 posterior PE, and 56 total PE. The incidence of early severe post-operative complications was 27.9% (n=36), and the early mortality rate was 2.3% (n=3). More frequent complications were related to the urinary diversion and intestinal surgery. In univariable analysis, hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL (odds ratio [OR]=4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.65-10.7; p=0.003), low albumin levels (OR=3.9; 95% CI=1.27-12.11; p=0.025), diabetes (OR=4.15; 95% CI=1.22-14.1; p=0.022), 2+ comorbidities at presentation (OR=5.18; 95% CI=1.49-17.93; p=0.012) were predictors of early severe complications. In multivariable analysis, only low hemoglobin and comorbidities at presentation were independent predictors of complications.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic exenteration is an aggressive surgery characterized by a high rate of post-operative complications. Pre-operative assessment of comorbidities and patient health status are crucial to better select the right candidate for this type of surgery.

Clinical outcomes of pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze morbidity and survival after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies and evaluate prognostic factors influencing postoperative outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent a pelvic exenteration at the departments of gynecologic oncology of three tertiary care centers in the Netherlands, the Leiden University Medical Centre, the Amsterdam University Medical Centre, and the Netherlands Cancer Institute, during a 20-year period. We determined postoperative morbidity, 2- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and 2- and 5-year progression free survival (PFS), and investigated parameters influencing these outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were included. The most common primary tumor was cervical cancer (n = 39, 43.3%). We observed at least one complication in 83 patients (92%). Major complications were seen in 55 patients (61%). Irradiated patients had a higher risk of developing a major complication. Sixty-two (68.9%) required ≥1 readmission. Re-operation was required in 40 patients (44.4%). Median OS was 25 months and median PFS was 14 months. The 2-year OS rate was 51.1% and the 2-year PFS rate was 41.5%. Tumor size, resection margins and pelvic sidewall involvement had a negative impact on OS (HR = 2.159, HR = 2.376, and HR = 1.200, respectively). Positive resection margins and pelvic sidewall involvement resulted in decreased PFS (HR = 2.567 and HR = 3.969, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative complications after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies are common, especially in irradiated patients. In this study, a 2-year OS rate of 51.1% was observed. Positive resections margins, tumor size, and pelvic sidewall involvement were related to poor survival outcomes. Adequate selection of patients who will benefit from pelvic exenteration is important.

R0 Resection in Recurrent Gynecologic Malignancy: Pelvic Exenteration and Beyond

OPINION STATEMENT

Pelvic exenteration is a radical surgery, but oftentimes, it is the last curative option for patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies who have exhausted more conservative therapies. Mortality and morbidity outcomes have improved over time, but there are still significant peri-operative risks. Considerations before pursing pelvic exenteration must include the likelihood of oncologic cure and patients' fitness to undergo such a procedure, particularly given the high rate of surgical morbidity. Pelvic sidewall tumors have been a traditional contraindication for pelvic exenteration due to the difficulty in obtaining negative margins, but the use of laterally extended endopelvic resection and intra-operative radiation therapy allows for more radical resection of recurrent disease. We believe that these procedures to achieve R0 resection can expand the use of curative-intent surgery in recurrent gynecologic cancer, but require the surgical expertise of colleagues in orthopedic and vascular surgery and collaboration with plastic surgery for complex reconstruction and optimization of post-operative healing. Surgery of recurrent gynecologic cancer including pelvic exenteration, requires careful patient selection, pre-operative medical optimization and prehabilitation, and thorough counseling to optimize outcomes, both oncologic and peri-operative. We believe the creation of a well-developed team, including surgical teams and supportive care services, can lead to the best patient outcomes and improved professional satisfaction amongst providers.

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: a propensity-matched survival analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the disease-free survival of patients undergoing open versus minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. The secondary endpoints were cancer-specific survival and peri-operative morbidity.

METHODS

A multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients undergoing curative and palliative anterior or total pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancer by a minimally invasive approach and an open approach between June 2010 and May 2021 were included. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. A 1:2 propensity match analysis between patients undergoing minimally invasive and open pelvic exenteration was performed to equalized baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

After propensity match analysis a total of 117 patients were included, 78 (66.7%) and 39 (33.3%) in the open and minimally invasive group, respectively. No significant difference in intra-operative (23.4% vs 10.3%, p=0.13) and major post-operative complications (24.4% vs 17.9%, p=0.49) was evident between the open and minimally invasive approach. Patients undergoing open pelvic exenteration received higher rates of intra-operative transfusions (41.0% vs 17.9%, p=0.013). Median disease-free survival was 17.0 months for both the open and minimally invasive groups (p=0.63). Median cancer-specific survival was 30.0 months and 26.0 months in the open and minimally invasive groups, respectively (p=0.80). Positivity of surgical margins at final histology was the only significant factor influencing the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.31) (p=0.004), while tumor diameter ≥50 mm at the time of pelvic exenteration was the only significant factor influencing the risk of death (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) (p=0.025).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study no survival difference was evident when minimally invasive pelvic exenteration was compared with open pelvic exenteration in patients with gynecological cancer. There was no difference in peri-operative complications, but a higher intra-operative transfusion rate was seen in the open group.

A modern-day experience with Brunschwig's operation: Outcomes associated with pelvic exenteration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate postoperative and oncologic outcomes associated with pelvic exenteration for non-ovarian gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for non-ovarian gynecologic malignancies at our institution from 1/1/2010-12/31/2019. Palliative exenteration cases were excluded from survival analysis. Postoperative complications were early (≤30 days) or late (31-180 days). Complications were graded using a validated institutional scale. Major complications were considered grade ≥ 3. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients identified, 89 underwent pelvic exenteration for recurrent disease, 5 for palliation, 5 for primary disease, and 1 for persistent disease. Thirty percent had cervical, 27% vulvar, 24% uterine, and 19% vaginal cancer. Sixty-two percent underwent total, 30% anterior, and 8% posterior exenteration. No deaths occurred intraoperatively or within 30 days of surgery. Six patients died after 30 days. Ninety-seven experienced a perioperative complication-49 early, 1 late, and 47 both. Fifty experienced a major complication-22 (44%) early, 19 (38%) late, and 9 (18%) both. No variables were statistically associated with complication development. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 61.0%; the 3-year overall survival rate was 61.6%. Of 58 surviving patients, 16 (28%) and 4 (7%) were alive after 5 and 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication rate for pelvic exenteration remains high. No variables demonstrated association with complication development as the rate was nearly 100%. The low rate of perioperative mortality is likely due to improved perioperative care.

Indocyanine Green to Assess Vascularity of Ileal Conduit Anastomosis During Pelvic Exenteration for Recurrent/Persistent Gynecological Cancer: A Pilot Study

Introduction

Pelvic exenteration performed for recurrent/persistent gynecological malignancies has been associated with urological short- and long-term morbidity due to altered vascularization of tissues for previous radiotherapy. The aims of the present study were to describe the use of intravenous indocyanine green (ICG) to assess vascularity of urinary diversion (UD) after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic cancers, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this technique, and to assess the postoperative complications.

Methods

Prospective, observational, single-center, pilot study including consecutive patients undergoing anterior or total pelvic exenteration due to persistent/recurrent gynecologic cancers between August 2020 and March 2021 at Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. All patients underwent intravenous injection of 3–6 ml of ICG (1.25 mg/ml) once the UD was completed. A near-infrared camera was used to evaluate ICG perfusion of anastomoses (ileum–ileum, right and left ureter with small bowel, and colostomy or colorectal sides of anastomosis) a few seconds after ICG injection.

Results

Fifteen patients were included in the study. No patient reported adverse reactions to ICG injection. Only 3/15 patients (20.0%) had an optimal ICG perfusion in all anastomoses. The remaining 12 (80.0%) patients had at least one ICG deficit; the most common ICG deficit was on the left ureter: 3 (20.0%) vs. 1 (6.7%) patient had no ICG perfusion on the left vs. right ureter, respectively (p = 0.598). 8/15 (53.3%) and 6/15 (40.0%) patients experienced grade ≥3 30-day early and late postoperative complications, respectively. Of these, two patients had early and one had late postoperative complications directly related to poor perfusion of anastomosis (UD leak, ileum–ileum leak, and benign ureteric stricture); all these cases had a suboptimal intraoperative ICG perfusion.

Conclusion

The use of ICG to intraoperatively assess the anastomosis perfusion at time of pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy is a feasible and safe technique. The different vascularization of anastomotic stumps may be related to anatomical sites and to previous radiation treatment. This approach could be in support of selecting patients at higher risk of complications who may need personalized follow-up.

Opportunities and Limitations of Pelvic Exenteration Surgery

PURPOSE

The practice of exenterative surgery is sometimes controversial and has garnered a certain scepticism. Surgical studies are difficult to conduct due to insufficient data. The aim of this review is to present the current standing of pelvic exenteration from a surgical, gynaecological and urological point of view.

METHODS

This review is based upon a literature review (MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL (Cochrane) and EMBASE (Elsevier)) of retrospective studies on exenterative surgery from 1993-2020. Using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) search terms, 1572 publications were found. These were evaluated and screened with respect to their eligibility using algorithms and well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, the guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used.

RESULTS

A complete tumour resection (R0) often represents the only curative option for advanced pelvic carcinomas and their recurrences. A recent systematic review showed significant symptom relief in 80% of palliative patients after pelvic exenteration. Surgical limitations (distant metastases, involvement of the pelvic wall, etc.) are diminished by adequate surgical expertise and close interdisciplinary cooperation. While the mortality rate is low (2-5%), the still relatively high morbidity rate (32-84%) can be minimized by optimizing the perioperative setting. Following exenterations, roughly 79-82% of patients report satisfying results according to PROs (patient-reported outcomes).

CONCLUSION

Due to multimodality treatment strategies combined with extended surgical expertise and patients' preferences, pelvic exenteration can be offered nowadays with low mortality and acceptable postoperative quality of life. The possibilities of surgical treatment are often underestimated. A multi-centre database (PelvEx Collaborative) was established to collect data and experiences to optimize the research in this field.

Robotic Pelvic Exenteration for Gynecologic Malignancies, Anatomic Landmarks, and Surgical Steps: A Systematic Review

Pelvic exenteration represents the last resort procedure for patients with advanced primary or recurrent gynecological malignancy. Pelvic exenteration can be divided into different subgroup based on anatomical extension of the procedures. The growing application of the minimally invasive surgical approach unlocked new perspectives for gynecologic oncology surgery. Minimally invasive surgery may offer significant advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes. Since 2009, several Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration experiences have been described in literature. The advent of robotic surgery resulted in a new spur to the worldwide spread of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. We present a review of the literature on robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration. The search was conducted using electronic databases from inception of each database through June 2021. 13 articles including 53 patients were included in this review. Anterior exenteration was pursued in 42 patients (79.2%), 2 patients underwent posterior exenteration (3.8%), while 9 patients (17%) were subjected to total exenteration. The most common urinary reconstruction was non-continent urinary diversion (90.2%). Among the 11 women who underwent to total or posterior exenteration, 8 (72.7%) received a terminal colostomy. Conversion to laparotomy was required in two cases due to intraoperative vascular injury. Complications' report was available for 51 patients. Fifteen Dindo Grade 2 complications occurred in 11 patients (21.6%), and 14 grade 3 complications were registered in 13 patients (25.5%). Only grade 4 complications were reported (2%). In 88% of women, the resection margins were negative. Pelvic exenteration represents a salvage procedure in patients with recurrent or persistent gynecological cancers often after radiotherapy. A careful patient selection remains the milestone of such a mutilating surgery. The introduction of the minimally invasive approach has led to advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes compared to classic open surgery. This review shows the feasibility of robotic pelvic exenteration. An important step forward should be to investigate the potential equivalence between robotic approaches and the laparotomic one, in terms of long-term oncological outcomes.

An evaluation of prognostic factors, oncologic outcomes, and management for primary and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prognostic factors, outcomes, and management patterns of patients treated for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-four women were retrospectively identified with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva treated at our institution between 1/1996-12/2018. Descriptive statistics were performed on patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The χ² tests and t-tests were used to compare categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. Recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier estimates, the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 52.5 months. Five-year RFS was 67.9%, 60.0%, 42.1%, and 20.0% for stage I-IV, respectively. Five-year DSS was 86.2%, 81.6%, 65.0%, and 42.9% for stage I-IV, respectively. On multivariate analysis, positive margins predicted overall RFS (hazard ratio [HR]=3.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-10.73; p=0.025), while presence of lichen sclerosus on pathology (HR=2.78; 95% CI=1.30-5.91; p=0.008) predicted local RFS. OS was predicted by nodal involvement (HR=2.51; 95% CI=1.02-6.13; p=0.043) and positive margins (HR=5.19; 95% CI=2.03-13.26; p=0.001). Adjuvant radiotherapy significantly improved RFS (p=0.016) and DSS (p=0.012) in node-positive patients. Median survival after treatment of local, groin, and pelvic/distant recurrence was 52, 8, and 5 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For primary treatment, more conservative surgical approaches can be considered with escalation of treatment in patients with concurrent precursor lesions, positive margins, and/or nodal involvement. Further studies are warranted to improve risk stratification in order to optimize treatment paradigms for vulvar cancer patients.

Outcomes of Ureteroneocystostomy in Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the durability of ureteroneocystostomy as well as pre- or post-operative factors that may be associated with failure to provide appropriate renal drainage.

METHODS

A total of 290 patients who underwent ureteral reimplantation to native bladder between 2003 and 2015 were identified. After excluding pediatric patients and those without any follow-up, 255 patients, 3 of whom had a subsequent contralateral reimplantation were included, for 258 observations. Kaplan-Meier method and univariate Cox models were used to assess whether factors such as radiation, prior abdominal surgery, age at re-implantation, gender and BMI are associated with re-implantation failure.

RESULTS

Among 258 observations, there were 27 failures. Median follow-up time was 1.1 years from re-implantation surgery among patients without a failure.1 and 5-year ureteral re-implantation failure is 7% (95% CI 4%, 12%) and 22% (95% CI 15%, 33%), respectively. On univariate analysis, post-operative radiation was found to be strongly associated with poorer ureteral re-implantation survival (HR: 6.62; CI 2.40, 18.29; P = .0003) No significant association between re-implantation failure-free survival and age at reimplantation, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, preoperative radiation and adjuvant radiation was noted (all P > .4).

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteroneocystotomy in the malignant setting has reasonable success rates through five years. No preoperative factors were associated with re-implantation failure. While all patients need to be followed due to increasing rates of failure with time, patients receiving palliative or salvage radiation therapy appear to be more prone to failure requiring further intervention.

Laparoscopic assessment improves case selection for exenterative surgery in recurrent cervical and endometrial cancer

The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the case selection of patients for pelvic exenteration to treat recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer. Pelvic exenteration is a rare surgical procedure performed by specialised multidisciplinary surgical teams. We performed a review of 55 consecutive laparoscopies for patients being evaluated for possible exenterative surgery for recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer at a single centre in the UK with a significant exenterative surgical practice. All patients had no evidence of metastatic disease on imaging prior to the laparoscopy. Despite thorough radiological assessment laparoscopy detected peritoneal, nodal or extrapelvic metastases in 20.8% of cases. 5.6% of the patients who underwent exenterative surgery were found to have unresectable pelvic disease intraoperatively. In these cases, the extent of disease was not determined radiologically or during the initial exploratory laparotomy. In our view, laparoscopic assessment is an essential component of the pre-operative work up of patients with recurrent cervical or endometrial cancer being considered for exenterative surgery.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative in cases of recurrent pelvic malignancy. Case selection is essential to determine those patients without metastases and with resectable pelvic disease - this will improve patient outcomes, avoid the unnecessary morbidity of major surgery, as well as the psychological consequences of abandoned procedures. The only two previous studies, published in 1998 (Plante and Roy 1998) and 2002 (Köhler et al. 2002) have shown laparoscopic assessment to be safe and improve case selection.What do the results of this study add? This study provides evidence that in the context of modern imaging modalities, including PET-CT scans, laparoscopic assessment continues to improve case selection for exenterative surgery.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study provides further evidence of the benefit of laparoscopy in the assessment of patients being considered for exenterative surgery for recurrent pelvic cancer. Routine laparoscopy improves case selection and will enhance patient experiences and outcomes.

Pelvic exenterations for gynecologic cancers: A retrospective analysis of a 30-year experience in a cancer center

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to report a 30-year experience of PE for gynecologic malignancies in a cancer center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at Institut Paoli-Calmette including patients who underwent PE for gynecologic malignancies. Four periods were evaluated: P1 before 1992, P2 between 1993 and 1999, P3 between 2000 and 2006 and P4 after 2006. The study evaluated the number of PE performed during each period, the type of PE, its level, indication, location of the primary tumor, patient age, previous radiotherapy ≥45 Gy, the rate of "curative" PE and exenteration-related reconstructive techniques. 90-day post-operative mortality and morbidity using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v 4.03 were reported.

RESULTS

277 PE were performed. The number of PE performed for recurrences rose during the study period (p = 0.042), PE performed for central tumors increased during P3 (64.4%) and P4 (67.4%) (p < 0.0001) and administration of radiotherapy ≥45 Gy was more frequent (p < 0.0001). The rate of "curative" PE increased (p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, "curative" PE were correlated with PE type, central locations and study period. Pelvic filling was progressively more frequently performed (p = 0.002). 90-day complication rate was 56.3%. In multivariate analysis there was a significant difference in distribution of CTCAE grade 3-4-5 morbidity depending on the period. Overall survival (OS) improved during the 2 last periods (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

A better selection of eligible patients for PE, namely through improvement in imaging techniques, has enabled to raise the rate of curative PE.

The influence of surgeon volume on outcomes after pelvic exenteration for a gynecologic cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of surgeon experience on intraoperative, postoperative and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of all women who underwent exenteration for a gynecologic malignancy at MD Anderson Cancer Center, between January 1993 and June 2013. A logistic regression was used to model the relationship between surgeon experience (measured as the number of exenteration cases performed by the surgeon prior to a given exenteration) and operative outcomes and postoperative complications. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model survival outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 167 exenterations were performed by 19 surgeons for cervix (78, 46.7%), vaginal (43, 25.8%), uterine (24, 14.4%), vulvar (14, 8.4%) and other cancer (8, 4.7%). The most common procedure was total pelvic exenteration (69.4%), incontinent urinary diversion (63.5%) and vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous reconstruction (42.5%). Surgical experience was associated with decreased estimated blood loss (p<0.001), intraoperative transfusion (p=0.009) and a shorter length of stay (p=0.03). No difference was noted in the postoperative complication rate (p=0.12-0.95). More surgeon experience was not associated with overall or disease specific survival: OS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.97-1.06; p=0.46) and DSS (HR=1.01; 95% CI=0.97-1.04; p=0.66), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing exenteration by more experienced surgeons had improvement in intraoperative factors such as estimated blood loss, transfusion rates and length of stay. No difference was seen in postoperative complication rates, overall or disease specific survival.

Survival After Pelvic Exenteration for Cervical Cancer: A National Cancer Database Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine overall survival (OS) and factors associated with OS after pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer.

METHODS

Women with cervical cancer who underwent exenteration (n = 517) were identified from the 1998 to 2011 National Cancer Database. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses were performed to test for associations of potential explanatory variables with OS. Analyzed confounders included age, insurance status, income, distance from home to treatment center, stage, exenteration type, surgical margin status, and treatment with adjuvant radiation and/or chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Among the entire cohort with clinical follow-up (n = 313), median OS was 24 months. Stage (P = 2.5 × 10), lymph node status (P = 1.3 × 10), insurance status (P = 1.5 × 10), and histologic type (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with OS by the log-rank test. Unadjusted median OS was 24.2 and 61.8 months for women with squamous and adenocarcinoma histologies, respectively. By multivariate Cox regression, age, insurance status, stage, margin status, and adjuvant radiation were associated with OS. Histology was not independently associated with OS on multivariate regression. Among women with node-negative disease, median OS was 73.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenteration may be curative for more than half of women with node-negative cervical cancer. Stage, insurance status, lymph node status, and surgical margin are independently associated with differential OS after exenteration.

Influence of tumor size on outcomes following pelvic exenteration

OBJECTIVE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is often the only curative option for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Despite radical surgery, recurrence risk and morbidity remain high. In this study, we sought to determine tumor size effect on perioperative outcomes and subsequent survival in patients undergoing PE.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed for female patients who underwent PE at two comprehensive cancer centers from 2000 to 2015. Demographics, complications and outcomes were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, student's t-test, logistic regression, non-parametric tests, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

Of 151 women who underwent PE, 144 had available pathologic tumor size. Gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, and urology performed 84, 29, and 31 exenterations, respectively. Tumor dimensions ranged from 0 to 25.5cm. Perioperative complications, 30-day mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates were not associated with tumor size. Obesity and prior radiation increased risk for major perioperative complication while anterior exenterations decreased risk. Larger tumors were more likely to undergo total pelvic exenteration (OR 1.14; 95%CI 1.03-1.27), have positive margins (OR 1.11; 95%CI 1.02-1.22), and recur (65%, 42% and 20% for tumors >4cm, ≤4cm and no residual tumor respectively, p=0.016). Tumor size >4cm and positive margins were associated with worse overall survival amongst gynecologic oncology patients.

CONCLUSION

Tumor size was not associated with perioperative morbidity. Larger tumors were associated with positive margins, more extensive resection, and worse survival in gynecologic oncology patients. Larger studies are needed to further understand tumor size impact on PE outcomes within specific tumor types.

Short- and long-term outcomes following pelvic exenteration for gynae-oncological and colorectal cancers: A 9 year consecutive single-centre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Radical pelvic exenteration can be undertaken for locally invasive or recurrent disease in both colorectal and gynaecological malignancies. In the UK this procedure is usually undertaken by the respective surgical specialties who have undergone divergent surgical training. This study describes and compares outcomes between colorectal and gynae-oncological teams following pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent gynaecological and colorectal cancers in a single-centre multi-disciplinary team.

METHOD

A retrospective review of consecutive pelvic exenteration patients undertaken over a nine-year period in a tertiary referral centre. Analyses comparing short- and long-term morbidity and mortality outcomes were undertaken by chi-square test for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Cumulative survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and factors associated with recurrence and survival determined using a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Thirty-four exenterations were undertaken; fourteen colorectal and twenty gynae-oncological. Morbidity was seen in 50% of colorectal and 75% of gynae-oncological patients. Recurrence was seen earlier and with greater frequency in the gynaeoncology group (44.4% and median time 11 months) than the colorectal group (21.4%, median time 41 months; p > 0.05). Survival in the gynae-oncology group was also lower than the colorectal group at 1-year (69.6% vs. 92.9%) and 5-years (58.0% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.115). The majority of gynae-oncological mortality occurred within 3-years of surgery, whilst the majority of mortality in the colorectal group was after 5-years.

CONCLUSION

Long-term patient outcome measures, including disease recurrence and 5-year survival, for colorectal exenteration appear better than for gynaeoncology patients, however, no statistical significant difference exists between short-term outcome measures between specialties. This is likely to be caused by different baseline pathologies and disease pattern influencing longer term prognosis but may also be a function of differing surgical thresholds and patient selection bias between specialties. Peri-operative and short-term morbidity appear equivalent despite divergent surgical backgrounds and training.