Role of uterine manipulator during laparoscopic endometrial cancer treatment

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.

Should laparoscopy be revisited in the management of stage II endometrial cancer in the post-LACC era?

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized trial showed that laparoscopy had poorer outcomes compared with open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer. Whether this is of concern in endometrial cancer, when the cervix is involved has received little attention. This study aimed to investigate whether there is any difference on overall and cancer specific survival between patients treated with laparoscopy and laparotomy for stage II endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Data from patients with histologically proven stage II endometrial cancer who were treated between 2010 and 2019 in a single cancer center were reviewed. Demographic, histopathological characteristics and treatment modalities were recorded. Recurrence rate, cancer specific and overall survival were compared between patients that were treated with laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

From 47 patients with stage II disease, 33 (70%) were treated with laparoscopy and 14 (30%) with open surgery. There was no difference on age (P=0.86), BMI (P=0.76), Comorbidity Index Score (P=0.96), upstaging/upgrading after surgery (P=0.41), performance of lymphadenectomy (P=0.74), histological type (P=0.32), LVSI (P=0.15), depth of myometrial invasion (P=0.07), postoperative hospital stay (P=0.18) and administration of adjuvant treatment (P=0.11) between the two groups. Recurrence rate (P=0.756), overall (P=0.606) and cancer specific survival (P=0.564) were also comparable between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and open surgery seem to have comparable outcomes for stage II endometrial cancer. The oncological safety of laparoscopy for stage II endometrial cancer should be further investigated with a randomized controlled trial.

The international system for reporting serous fluid cytopathology: The initial project survey

OBJECTIVE

An international panel in the field of body fluid cytology, supported by the International Academy of Cytology and the American Society of Cytopathology, conducted a survey to identify opinions and explore existing practice patterns regarding body fluid cytopathology.

METHODS

The study group, formed during the 2018 European Congress of Cytology in Madrid, generated a survey of 54 questions related to the practice and taxonomy of body fluid cytology. The survey was available online from 28 August 2018 until 10 December 2018. Participants were invited through the websites and listserves of the professional societies.

RESULTS

The survey collected 593 international participant responses. Questions pertained to practice patterns and diagnostic language. Information was collected regarding credentials, work setting, work volume (4-10,000 samples) and years in practice (0-60 years). The responses revealed variations in diagnostic practice and sample management. Direct smears and ThinPrep® preparations are the most popular methods, followed by Cytospin® and SurePath®. Most (70%) respondents perform ancillary studies on their material, with over 50% preferring a cell block preparation. Approximately 32% indicated that they are capable of performing genetic studies on the samples. Nearly 78% of participants would accept a two-stage cytology report, with a preliminary assessment followed by a final diagnosis that accounts for ancillary studies to generate a more precise cytological interpretation. Approximately one-third (36%) never report adequacy on body fluid samples. Most (78%) report a general category result (negative, atypical, suspicious, or positive) and 22% provide a detailed surgical pathology type report. Most (73.6%) participants believe that both Papanicolaou stains and a modified Giemsa stain (eg Diff Quik) should be standard preparations for all serous fluid cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the survey demonstrated strong support for the development of a unified system for reporting body fluid cytopathology among respondents.

Sentinel Lymph Node in Aged Endometrial Cancer Patients "The SAGE Study": A Multicenter Experience

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of endometrial cancer is increasing in elderly people. Considering that aging progressively affects lymphatic draining function, we aimed to define its impact on IGC uptake during SLN mapping.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort of endometrial cancer patients with apparently early-stage endometrial cancer undergoing complete surgical staging with SLN dissection was identified in four referral cancer centers from May 2015 to March 2021. Patients were classified in Group 1 (<65 years old) and Group 2 (≥65 years old). The primary endpoint was the assessment of the overall, bilateral, and unsuccessful SLN mapping in the two groups. Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of SLN anatomical distribution and the identification of predictors for mapping failure applying a logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 844 patients were enrolled in the study (499 in Group 1 and 395 in Group 2). The overall detection rate, the successful bilateral mapping, and the mapping failure rate of the SLN were 93.8% vs. 87.6% (p = 0.002), 77.1% vs. 66.8% (p = 0.001), and 22.9% vs. 33.2% (p = 0.001), respectively, in Group 1 vs. Group 2. The advanced age affects the anatomical distribution of the SLN leading to a stepwise reduction of "unexpected" mapping sites (left hemipelvis: p < 0.001; right hemipelvis: p = 0.058). At multivariate analysis age ≥ 65 (OR: 1.495, 95% CI: 1.095-2.042, p = 0.011), BMI (OR: 1.023, 95% CI: 1.000-1.046, p = 0.047), non-endometrioid histotype (OR: 1.619, 95% CI: 1.067-2.458, p = 0.024), and LVSI (OR: 1.407, 95% CI: 1.010-1.961, p = 0.044) represent independent predictors of unsuccessful mapping. Applying binomial logistic regression analysis, there was a 1.280-fold increase in the risk of failed mapping for every 10-year-old increase in age (OR: 1.280, 95% CI: 1.108-1.479, p = 0.001). A higher rate of surgical under-staging (0.9% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.012) and adjuvant undertreatment (p = 0.018) was reported in Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Old age represents a risk factor for SLN mapping failure both intrinsically and in relation to the greater incidence of other independent risk factors such as LVSI, non-endometrioid histotype, and BMI. Surgeons should target the usual uptake along UPP during the SLN dissection in this subgroup of patients to minimize mapping failure and the consequent risk of surgical under-staging and adjuvant undertreatment.