Intrauterine Manipulator Use During Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy and Risk of Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer recurrence after the use of a uterine manipulator during laparoscopic surgery

Objective

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the standard approach for the staging and treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) and often includes use of a uterine manipulator. Uterine perforation is a known risk in this setting, and the impact of perforation and tumor spillage on cancer recurrence is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of MIS for low-grade, early-stage EC on disease recurrence.

Methods

A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent MIS for management of low-grade and early-stage EC with use of a uterine manipulator. Rates of disease recurrence were compared between patients with and without documented uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

408 patients with low-grade and early-stage EC were identified from the tumor registry and included in the study. Uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage was documented in 5.9 % (24/408) of cases. Recurrent disease was noted in 8.1 % (33/408) of the entire cohort. Most patients had isolated local recurrence (23/33; 69.7 %), while 9.1 % (3/33) had distant recurrence and 21.2 % (7/33) had both local and distant recurrence. There was no association between uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage and recurrence rates (p = 0.67). The trend in disease free survival was shorter among patients with these complications.

Conclusions

Our analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in disease recurrence rates among patients with early-stage, low-grade EC based on uterine perforation and/or tumor spillage at the time of surgery.

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as the standard of care for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on outcomes reported solely from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overlooking valuable data from non-randomised studies. This inaugural systematic review and network meta-analysis comprehensively compares clinical and oncological outcomes between MIS and open surgery for early-stage EC, incorporating evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020186959). All original research of any experimental design reporting clinical and oncological outcomes of surgical treatment for endometrial cancer was included. Study selection was restricted to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published 1 January 1995-31 December 2021. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 99 studies were included in the network meta-analysis, comprising 181,716 women and 14 outcomes. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay but increased operating time. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a significant reduction in ileus (OR = 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.87) and total intra-operative complications (OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.75) as well as a higher disease-free survival (OR = 2.45, 95% CrI: 1.04-6.34). Conclusions: For treating early endometrial cancer, minimal-access surgery via robotic-assisted or laparoscopic techniques appears safer and more efficacious than open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with fewer complications and favourable oncological outcomes.

Endometrial cancer: predictors and oncological safety of tumor tissue manipulation

PURPOSE

The main goal of this study is to assess the impact of tumor manipulation on the presence of lympho-vascular space invasion and its influence on oncological results.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multi-centric study amongst patients who had received primary surgical treatment for apparently early-stage endometrial cancer. A multivariate statistical analysis model was designed to assess the impact that tumor manipulation (with the use of uterine manipulator or preoperative hysteroscopy) has on lympho-vascular development (LVSI) in the final surgical specimen.

RESULTS

A total of 2852 women from 15 centers were included and divided into two groups based on the lympho-vascular status in the final surgical specimen: 2265 (79.4%) had no LVSI and 587 (20.6%) presented LVSI. The use of uterine manipulator was associated with higher chances of lympho-vascular involvement regardless of the type used: Balloon manipulator (HR: 95% CI 4.64 (2.99-7.33); p < 0.001) and No-Balloon manipulator ([HR]: 95% CI 2.54 (1.66-3.96); p < 0.001). There is no evidence of an association between the use of preoperative hysteroscopy and higher chances of lympho-vascular involvement (HR: 95% CI 0.90 (0.68-1.19); p = 0.479).

CONCLUSION

Whilst performing common gynecological procedures, iatrogenic distention and manipulation of the uterine cavity are produced. Our study suggests that the use of uterine manipulator increases the rate of LVSI and, therefore, leads to poorer oncological results. Conversely, preoperative hysteroscopy does not show higher rates of LVSI involvement in the final surgical specimen and can be safely used.

Intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: association for pathological factors and oncologic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between intrauterine manipulator use and pathological factors and oncologic outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who had laparoscopic hysterectomy in Japan.

METHODS

This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of the tumor registry of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Study population was 3846 patients who had laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer from January 2015 to December 2017. An automated 1-to-1 propensity score matching with preoperative and intraoperative demographics was performed to assess postoperative pathological factors associated with the intrauterine manipulator. Survival outcomes were assessed by accounting for possible pathological mediators related to intrauterine manipulator use.

RESULTS

Most patients had preoperative stage I disease (96.5%) and grade 1-2 endometrioid tumors (81.9%). During the study period, 1607 (41.8%) patients had intrauterine manipulator use and 2239 (58.2%) patients did not. In the matched cohort, the incidences of lymphovascular space invasion in the hysterectomy specimen were 17.8% in the intrauterine manipulator group and 13.3% in the non-manipulator group. Intrauterine manipulator use was associated with a 35% increased odds of lymphovascular space invasion (adjusted odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.69). The incidences of malignant cells identified in the pelvic peritoneal cytologic sample at hysterectomy were 10.8% for the intrauterine manipulator group and 6.4% for the non-manipulator group. Intrauterine manipulator use was associated with a 77% increased odds of malignant peritoneal cytology (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% Cl 1.29 to 2.31). The 5 year overall survival rates were 94.2% for the intrauterine manipulator group and 96.6% for the non-manipulator group (hazard ratio (HR) 1.64, 95% Cl 1.12 to 2.39). Possible pathological mediators accounted HR was 1.36 (95%Cl 0.93 to 2.00).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide analysis of predominantly early stage, low-grade endometrial cancer in Japan suggested that intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer may be associated with an increased risk of lymphovascular space invasion and malignant peritoneal cytology. Possible mediator effects of intrauterine manipulator use on survival warrant further investigation, especially with a prospective setting.

The Impact of Intrauterine Manipulators on Outcome and Recurrence Patterns of Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery

Objective: To evaluate the use of manipulators on the outcome of women who had minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients operated with or without an intrauterine manipulator. Results: Six hundred ninety-nine patients were included. The median follow-up was 44 months (range, 29-67). Nineteen (8.8%) patients had positive cytology in the manipulator group versus 21 (4.4%) in the comparison group (p = 0.02). Total recurrence rate was similar between the groups (12.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.8). Vaginal vault recurrence was the most common site of recurrence with higher incidence in the manipulator group (4.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis of low-risk patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment showed higher recurrence rate (8.3% vs. 3%; p = 0.023) and worse disease-free survival (p = 0.01) for the manipulator group. After controlling for other variables, the use of a manipulator did not affect the risk of recurrence for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; confidence interval [95% CI], 0.7-2.1, p = 0.3) and for the low-risk subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.8-7, p = 0.08). Conclusion: The use of a manipulator increases the risk of positive cytology as well as vaginal vault recurrences, but it does not reduce the overall survival of patients.

A retrospective study of the effects of uterine manipulators on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study investigated the effects of uterine manipulator use during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

We collected clinical data on 762 patients with stage IA2 to IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2009 to 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 5-year overall survival rates between patients treated with and without a uterine manipulator.

RESULTS

Patient demographics did not differ between the two groups. In addition, the incidence of lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, pathologic types, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, the histologic grade, and the rate of lymphatic metastases did not differ between the groups. Meanwhile, perioperative clinical indicators were similar in the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences in 5-year survival rates and survival curves were recorded between the groups among both all patients (84.5% vs. 85.6%) and early-stage patients (89.1% vs. 89.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of uterine manipulators during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not affect clinicopathological markers or increase the risk of death.

Intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effects on oncologic outcomes of intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was performed by an expert librarian in multiple electronic databases from inception to January 31, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all studies in the English language that compared oncologic outcomes (recurrence-free, cause-specific, or overall survival) between endometrial cancer patients who underwent total laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer with vs without the use of an intrauterine manipulator. Studies comparing only peritoneal cytology status or lymphovascular space invasion were summarized for completeness. No selection criteria were applied to the study design.

METHODS

Four reviewers independently reviewed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for oncologic outcomes using the random effect model. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 tests. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger test.

RESULTS

Out of 350 identified references, we included 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies for a total of 14 studies and 5,019 patients. The use of an intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was associated with a pooled hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P=.05; I2=31%; chi square P value=.22). Pooled hazard ratio for recurrence was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.25-8.76; P=.62; I2=67%; chi square P value=.08) when only randomized controlled trials were considered. Pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.76; P=0.79; I2=44%; chi square P value=.17). The rate of positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion did not differ using an intrauterine manipulator.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine manipulator use during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was neither significantly associated with recurrence-free and overall survival nor with positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion, but further prospective studies are needed.

Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer

Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.

Use of uterine manipulator and uterine perforation in minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

Safety of the uterine manipulator (UM) within endometrial cancer (EC) surgery is being questioned. Its use might be one of the issues for potential tumor dissemination during the procedure, especially in the case of uterine perforation (UP). No prospective data on this surgical complication, nor on the oncological consequences exist. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of UP while using UM when performing surgery for EC and the impact of UP on the choice of adjuvant treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective single-center cohort study from November 2018 to February 2022, considering all EC cases surgically treated by a minimally invasive approach with the help of a UM. Demographic, preoperative, postoperative and adjuvant treatment corresponding to the included patients were collected and comparatively analyzed according to the absence or presence of a UP.

RESULTS

Of the 82 patients included in the study, 9 UPs (11%) occurred during surgery. There was no significant difference in demographics and disease characteristics at diagnosis that may have induced UP. The type of UM used or the approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) did not influence the occurrence of UP (p = 0.44). No positive peritoneal cytology was found post hysterectomy. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of lymph-vascular space invasion within the perforation group, 67% vs. 25% in the no perforation group, p = 0.02. Two out of nine (22%) adjuvant therapies were changed because of UP. The median follow-up time for patients was 7.6 months (range 0.5-33.1 months). No recurrence was found in the UP group.

CONCLUSION

Our study found a uterine perforation rate of 11%. This information needs to be further integrated to consider the usefulness of MU for EC surgery.

Influence of uterine manipulator use on the incidence of lymphovascular propagation in the treatment of endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cancers are among the epithelial malignancies of the lining of the uterine cavity. The invasion of carcinoma into the lymphovascular space (LVSI) is considered a risk factor for the course of the disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated 170 female patients. Our primary objective was to find any difference in the incidence of LVSI in female patients treated with and without an intrauterine manipulator. In addition, we analyzed the effect of the type of intrauterine manipulator used on the incidence of LVSI, tumor grading, myometrial invasion, and the method of obtaining primary histology with regard to the incidence of LVSI.

RESULTS

Using a manipulator during surgery was not associated with LVSI (with a manipulator vs. without, 11.5 vs. 21.7%; OR 1.8; 95% CI 0.73-4.39; p = 0.199). However, the method used to obtain the primary histology had a statistically significant effect on the incidence of LVSI in our set (p-value = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we did not confirm the effect of a uterine manipulator on the possible increase of LVSI positive cases. The secondary analysis indicated a higher incidence of LVSI in the female patients diagnosed with curettage than in those who underwent hysteroscopy. Trail registration: Trail is registered in ClicincalTrails.gov with identifier: NCT05261165.

Influence of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in minimally invasive surgery of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The endoscopic approach for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treatment is considered gold standard. Some authors expressed their concern regarding uterine manipulator (UM) as a risk factor for tumor spillage and dissemination allowing peritoneal or lympho-vascular spaces invasion (LVSI). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of UM on the presence of LVSI, recurrence rate and presence of atypical or malignant peritoneal cytology in patients with endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between the use of UM and oncological outcomes. This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 18 studies (3 prospective studies, 13 retrospective studies, and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed no significant difference (RR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.08) in the incidence of LVSI between manipulated hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and between UM group and non-UM group in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.85), no significant difference in the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.74), in the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology between manipulated and non-manipulated hysterectomies in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.89, 95% CI, 0.74 to 4.83) and before and after the use of uterine manipulator (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). We found a positive association between malignant cytology and hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator had been used in a sub-group analysis where LH/LAVH were compared to TAH. (RR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.08-4.71. P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports that the use of uterine manipulator for minimally invasive treatment of endometrial cancer does not increase the rate of recurrence and LVSI. Therefore, the opportunity of any other studies on its use in endometrial cancer women should be questioned.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) emerged as the mainstay in the surgical management of cervical cancer, bringing advantages such as lower operative morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes in numerous retrospective studies. However, in 2018, a prospective phase III randomized controlled trial, “Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix (LACC)”, unexpectedly reported that MIS was associated with a statistically significant poorer overall survival and disease-free survival compared to open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Various hypotheses have been raised by the authors to try to explain these results, but the LACC trial was not powered to answer those questions. In this study, through an exhaustive literature review, we wish to explore some of the potential causes that may explain the poorer oncologic outcomes associated with MIS, including the type of MIS surgery, the size of the lesion, the impact of CO2 pneumoperitoneum, prior conization, the use of uterine manipulator, the use of protective measures, and the effect of surgical expertise/learning curve.

Association of Myometrial Invasion With Lymphovascular Space Invasion, Lymph Node Metastasis, Recurrence, and Overall Survival in Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 79 Studies With 68,870 Patients

Background

Myometrial invasion has been demonstrated to correlate to clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis in endometrial cancer. However, not all the studies have the consistent results and no meta-analysis has investigated the association of myometrial invasion with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), lymph node metastasis (LNM), recurrence, and overall survival (OS). Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between myometrial invasion and clinicopathological characteristics or overall survival in endometrial cancer.

Materials and Methods

A search of Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science was carried out to collect relevant studies from their inception until June 30, 2021. The quality of each included study was evaluated using Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) scale. Review Manager version 5.4 was employed to conduct the meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 79 articles with 68,870 endometrial cancer patients were eligible including 9 articles for LVSI, 29 articles for LNM, 8 for recurrence, and 37 for OS in this meta-analysis. Myometrial invasion was associated with LVSI (RR 3.07; 95% CI 2.17–4.35; p < 0.00001), lymph node metastasis (LNM) (RR 4.45; 95% CI 3.29–6.01; p < 0.00001), and recurrence (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.58–2.69; p < 0.00001). Deep myometrial invasion was also significantly related with poor OS via meta-synthesis of HRs in both univariate survival (HR 3.36, 95% CI 2.35–4.79, p < 0.00001) and multivariate survival (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.59–2.53, p < 0.00001). Funnel plot suggested that there was no significant publication bias in this study.

Conclusion

Deep myometrial invasion correlated to positive LVSI, positive LNM, cancer recurrence, and poor OS for endometrial cancer patients, indicating that myometrial invasion was a useful evaluation criterion to associate with clinical outcomes and prognosis of endometrial cancer since depth of myometrial invasion can be assessed before surgery. The large scale and comprehensive meta-analysis suggested that we should pay more attention to myometrial invasion in clinical practice, and its underlying mechanism also deserves further investigation.

Factors associated with an increased risk of recurrence in patients diagnosed with high-grade endometrial cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery: A study of the society of gynecologic oncology of Canada (GOC) community of practice (CoP)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a standard surgical approach for comprehensive surgical staging in women with endometrial cancer. As rates and complexity of MIS are steadily increasing, it is important to identify potential risk factors which may be associated with this approach. This study evaluates the impact of local factors on the risk of disease recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients diagnosed with high grade endometrial cancer (HGEC) who underwent MIS between 2012 and 2016 at eight Canadian centers. Data was collected from medical records. The 75th percentile was calculated for estimated uterine volume and weight. All recurrences were categorized into two groups; intra-abdominal vs. extra-abdominal. To search for significant covariates associated with recurrence-free survival a Cox proportional hazard model was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients were included in the study. Intra-uterine manipulator was used in 497 (35.8%) of patients. Vaginal lacerations were documented in 9.1%. Median follow-up was 30.5 months (interquartile range 20-47). There were 157 who had disease recurrence (20.71%), including 92 (12.14%) intra-abdominal and 60 (7.92%) extra-abdominal only recurrences. In univariate analysis myometrial invasion, LVI, stage, uterine volume and weight > 75th percentile and chemotherapy were associated with increased risk of intra-abdominal recurrence. In multivariable analysis only stage, and specimen weight > 75th percentile (OR 2.207, CI 1.123-4.337) remained significant. Uterine volume, and weight were not associated with increased risk of extra-abdominal recurrences.

CONCLUSION

For patients diagnosed with HGEC undergoing MIS, extracting a large uterus is associated with a significantly increased risk for intra-abdominal recurrence.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has many benefits, in the form of reduced postoperative morbidity, improved recovery and reduced inpatient stay. It is imperative, however, when new techniques are adopted, in the context of treating oncology patients, that the oncological efficacy and safety are established rigorously rather than assumed based on first principles. Here we have attempted to provide a comprehensive review of all the contentious and topical themes surrounding the use of MIS in the treatment of endometrial and cervix cancer following a thorough review of the literature. On the topic of endometrial cancer, we cover the role of laparoscopy in both early and advanced disease, together with the role and unique benefits of robotic surgery. The surgical challenge of patients with a raised body mass index and the frail and elderly are discussed and finally the role of sentinel lymph node assessment. For cervical cancer, the role of MIS for staging and primary treatment is covered, together with the interesting and highly specialist topics of fertility-sparing treatment, ovarian transposition and the live birth rate associated with this. We end with a discussion on the evidence surrounding the role of adjuvant hysterectomy following radical chemoradiation and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer. MIS is the standard of care for endometrial cancer. The future of MIS for cervix cancer, however, remains uncertain. Current recommendations, based on the available evidence, are that the open approach should be considered the gold standard for the surgical management of early cervical cancer and that MIS should only be adopted in the context of research. Careful counselling of patients on the current evidence, discussing in detail the risks and benefits to enable them to make an informed choice, remains paramount.

Impact of surgical approach on prevalence of positive peritoneal cytology and lymph-vascular invasion in patients with early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a National Cancer Database study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of positive peritoneal cytology and lymph-vascular invasion by surgical approach among patients with early stage endometrioid endometrial carcinoma undergoing hysterectomy.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was accessed and patients with FIGO stage I endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (with no history of another tumor diagnosed) who underwent simple hysterectomy (open or minimally invasive) between January 2010 and December 2015 and had available data on the presence of lymph-vascular invasion and/or status of peritoneal cytology were selected for further analysis. The impact of a surgical approach on the odds of lymph-vascular invasion and positive peritoneal cytology was calculated after controlling for tumor grade, size, and depth of myometrial invasion.

RESULTS

A total of 74 732 patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified. The rate of minimally invasive hysterectomy was 75.7%. Data on peritoneal cytology status and lymph-vascular invasion were available for 50 185 and 71 641 patients, respectively. A higher proportion of patients who had minimally invasive hysterectomy had positive peritoneal cytology (4.4% vs 2.3%, p<0.001), and presence of lymph-vascular invasion (10.4% vs 9.2%, p<0.001). After controlling for tumor size, tumor grade, and disease substage, the performance of minimally invasive surgery was associated with higher odds of positive peritoneal cytology (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.37) and presence of lymph-vascular invasion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.41). After controlling for confounders there was no difference in survival between open and minimally invasive surgery groups (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery may be associated with a higher incidence of positive peritoneal cytology and lymph-vascular invasion among patients with early stage endometrioid endometrial cancer. There was no difference in overall survival between patients who had laparotomy or minimally invasive surgery.

Lymphovascular space invasion in endometrial carcinoma: Tumor size and location matter

OBJECTIVE

To analyze histological factors possibly associated with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and to determine which of those can act as independent surrogate markers.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study performed between January 2001 and December 2014. LVSI was defined as the presence of tumor cells inside a space completely surrounded by endothelial cells. Risk factors evaluated included myometrial invasion, tumor grade, size, location, and cervical invasion. Univariate logistical regression models were applied to study any possible association of LVSI with these factors. Values were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 327 patients with endometrial carcinoma treated in our Centre were included. LVSI was observed in 120 patients (36.7%). Lower uterine segment involvement (OR 5.21, 95% CI:2.6-10.4, p < 0.001) and size ≥2 cm (OR 2.62, 95% CI: 1.14-6.1, p < 0.001) were independent factors for LSVI in multivariate analysis. In univariate analysis, LVSI was a surrogate marker in type 1 tumors with deep myometrial invasion (IB, 51.9% vs. IA, 16.0%; p < 0.001), grade 3 (G3 55.8% vs. G1 16.2%; p < 0.001), size ≥2 cm (37.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.005), those with involving the lower segment of the uterus (58.9% vs. 22.5%, p < 0.001) and/or with cervical stromal invasion (65.4% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001), and in type 2 tumors (61.5% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.001). The use of uterine manipulator did not increase the rate of LVSI (35.5% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.612) as compared to no manipulator use.

CONCLUSIONS

Size ≥2 cm and involvement of the lower uterine segment are independent factors for LSVI, in type 1 tumors, which can be used for surgical planning. LVSI is also more common in type 1 tumors with deep myometrial invasion, grade 3 and/or cervical stromal invasion, and also in type 2 tumors. The use of a uterine manipulator does not increase LVSI.

Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P<.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.20; P=.006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97; P=.027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83; P=.026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P=.63).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.

Role of uterine manipulator during laparoscopic endometrial cancer treatment

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most frequent gynecologic malignancy with 61,000 new cases diagnosed per year in the USA. Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) LAP2 randomized study demonstrated a superimposable 5-year overall survival between laparotomic and laparoscopic approaches in EC treatment. In this context the uterine manipulator (UM) represents a valuable tool in order to increase the ergonomics of surgical gesture during a laparoscopic total hysterectomy. Despite the proven safety of the minimally invasive approach in EC treatment, neither the indication whether to use or not, nor the recommendation concerning a specific type of UM are provided by international guidelines. This narrative review aims to collect all the main findings in the literature about UM use to investigate its safety in EC patients. Based on the analysis of the literature research, the main results were categorized into two manipulator-related problems: the iatrogenic LVSI, and the retrograde tumor spillage. LVSI is defined as the presence of tumor cells within an endothelium-lined space. An electronic search was performed using the following keywords: 'uterine manipulator', and 'endometrial cancer'. The electronic database search provided a total of 93 studies. Of whom, 12 case reports, 5 studies not in English language, and 65 works not fitting the review scope were excluded from the analysis. Eleven studies were considered eligible for the purpose of the study. The most recent studies have highlighted the safety of the uterine manipulator in the early-stage EC laparoscopic treatment. All types of manipulators are considered to be fairly safe but its application should be tailored according to tumor dimension and grade of myometrial infiltration.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: A retrospective, single-center study

AIM

We compared the short-term outcomes between conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and robot-assisted surgery (RAS) to assess the technical feasibility of the latter for early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes between two groups of 223 patients (CLS group, n = 102; RAS group, n = 121) with early-stage endometrial cancer. Surgical procedures included hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. We analyzed the data from intrapelvic surgery alone because para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed via conventional endoscopic extraperitoneal approach without robot for both groups.

RESULTS

No differences were identified in patients' age and body mass index. The mean operative time was 133 ± 28 versus 178 ± 41 min (P < 0.01), mean blood loss was 196 ± 153 versus 237 ± 146 mL (P = 0.047), mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 9 ± 4 versus 8 ± 3 days (P = 0.01) and mean rate of perioperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was 2.0 versus 3.4% (P = 0.53) for the CLS versus RAS groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

The operative time was significantly longer and blood loss was significantly greater in the RAS group than in the CLS group, without a significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes. These differences are within an acceptable clinical range, showing that RAS is feasible and safe for early-stage endometrial cancer, providing short-term outcomes comparable to those of conventional surgery. Future studies are warranted to compare the long-term oncological outcomes by extending the observation period and including para-aortic lymphadenectomy data.

Outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for patients with endometrial carcinoma involving the cervix

OBJECTIVE

Most studies evaluating the oncologic safety of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer focus on patients with stage I disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for patients with endometrial carcinoma involving the cervix.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2015, with clinical stage II endometrial carcinoma, who underwent hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy, were drawn from the National Cancer Database. Inclusion criteria were clinical International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2009) stage II, patients who underwent hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy, and known route of surgery (open or minimally invasive). Patients who received radiation therapy prior to surgery, those who had subtotal/supracervical hysterectomy, or unknown type of hysterectomy were excluded. The exposure of interest was performance of minimally invasive surgery either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted. Overall survival (primary endpoint) was assessed for patients diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2014 following generation of Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with the log-rank test. A Cox model was constructed to control for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 2175 patients were identified and 1282 (58.9%) had minimally invasive surgery. Of these, 339 and 943 patients had laparoscopic or robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, respectively. Minimally invasive surgery was converted to open surgery in 74 (5.8%) patients. Those undergoing minimally invasive surgery had shorter hospital stay (median 1 vs 3 days, p<0.001), lower unplanned readmission rate (2.7% vs 4.7%, p=0.014), and 90-day mortality (0.8% vs 1.8%, p=0.05). Patients who had open surgery (n=796) had worse overall survival compared with those who had minimally invasive surgery (n=1048, p=0.003); 3-year overall survival rates were 76.8% and 83.6%, respectively. After controlling for patient age, race, type of insurance, presence of co-morbidities, performance of extensive lymphadenectomy, presence of positive lymph nodes, tumor histology, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, and administration of radiotherapy, performance of minimally invasive surgery was not associated with worse survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, minimally invasive surgery in patients with stage II endometrial carcinoma was associated with superior short-term peri-operative outcomes and improved 3-year overall survival.

The effects of uterine manipulators in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has achieved great success in the surgical treatment of many kinds of cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence evaluating the effects of the use of uterine manipulators in minimally hysterectomies for endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to Sep. 12, 2019 to identify relevant prospective or retrospective studies, using the intersection of "endometrial neoplasms", "endometrial carcinoma", "endometrial cancer"; "uterine manipulator", and "intrauterine manipulator". The initial search identified 251 items in total. The main outcomes of interest were the presence of LVSI (lymphovascular space invasion), the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, and the presence of recurrence during follow-up.

RESULTS

After screening for eligibility, 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis finally. The timing of uterine manipulators insertion during MIS for endometrial cancer was not associated with an increased risk of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). Moreover, there was no significant difference for the rate of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.53, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.77), LVSI (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.11) or the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.74) regarding the use of uterine manipulators for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

We found that the use of uterine manipulators is not associated with an increased incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, LVSI, or recurrence among patients with endometrial cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020147111.

Uterine manipulator in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: safety and usefulness

The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of uterine manipulators in facilitating total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, SpringerLink, ClinicalKey and Elsevier ScienceDirect databases was performed, and articles describing TLH with or without the use of uterine manipulators were retrieved. Complications related to the use of uterine manipulators are numerous, and although uterine manipulator seems to facilitate TLH, the procedure without a uterine manipulator seems to have a comparable safety and effectiveness, although evidence based on a direct comparison of the two approaches is limited without available controlled trials. Uterine manipulator may provide support in cases of large uteri, severe endometriosis, recto vaginal adhesions and regional anesthesia, while its use may increase complications in cases of vaginal stenosis and nulliparity. Therefore, to perform TLH, the surgeon should individualize for each case if uterine manipulator is needed and which manipulator best suits the surgical procedure requirements and case characteristics. Further studies comparing the two approaches are mandatory.

Significance of abnormal peritoneal cytology on survival of women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine survival of women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer whose peritoneal cytology showed malignant or atypical cells (abnormal peritoneal cytology).

METHODS

This is a multi-center retrospective study examining 1668 women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary hysterectomy with available peritoneal cytology results between 2000 and 2015. Abnormal peritoneal cytology was correlated to clinico-pathological characteristics and oncological outcome.

RESULTS

Malignant and atypical cells were seen in 125 (7.5%) and 58 (3.5%) cases, respectively. On multivariate analysis, non-obesity, non-diabetes mellitus, cigarette use, and lympho-vascular space invasion were independently associated with abnormal peritoneal cytology (all, P<0.05). Abnormal peritoneal cytology was independently associated with decreased disease-free survival (hazard ratio 3.07, P<0.001) and cause-specific survival (hazard ratio 3.42, P=0.008) on multivariate analysis. Abnormal peritoneal cytology was significantly associated with increased risks of distant-recurrence (5-year rates: 8.8% versus 3.6%, P=0.001) but not local-recurrence (5.2% versus 3.0%, P=0.32) compared to negative cytology. Among women with stage I disease, abnormal peritoneal cytology was significantly associated with an increased risk of distant-recurrence in the low risk group (5-year rates: 5.5% versus 1.0%, P<0.001) but not in the high-intermediate risk group (13.3% versus 10.8% P=0.60). Among 183 women who had abnormal peritoneal cytology, postoperative chemotherapy significantly reduced the rate of peritoneal recurrence (5-year rates: 1.3% versus 9.2%, P=0.039) whereas postoperative radiotherapy did not (7.1% versus 5.5%, P=0.63).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that abnormal peritoneal cytology may be a prognostic factor for decreased survival in women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer, particularly for low-risk group.