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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Quality of life after extended pelvic exenterations

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic pelvic exenteration and laterally extended endopelvic resection for postradiation recurrent cervical carcinoma: Technical feasibility and short-term oncologic outcome

OBJECTIVE

Surgery is the only treatment for cervical cancer recurrence in a previously irradiated field. Pelvic exenteration (PE) and laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) are indicated for select patients; however, morbidity and mortality rates remain high, and new treatment modalities are required. Laparoscopy optimizes visualization and allows meticulous dissection while also reducing intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications without worsening the outcomes. We aimed to clarify the feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopic PE and LEER for previously irradiated recurrent cervical cancer.

METHODS

We prospectively investigated the outcomes of laparoscopic PE and LEER in 28 patients with recurrent cervical carcinoma after radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Seventeen laparoscopic PEs for central recurrences and 11 laparoscopic LEERs for lateral recurrences were performed. The median operation time and blood loss were 454mins and 285 mL in the PE group, and 562mins and 325 mL in the LEER group, respectively, with no conversions to laparotomy. R0 resection was achieved in all patients in the PE group and 73% in the LEER group. The morbidity and mortality rates were 41% and 0% in PE group, and 55% and 0% in LEER group, respectively. The 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 68.9% and 76% in the PE group, and 27.3% and 29.6% in the LEER group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic PE is feasible for previously irradiated central recurrent cervical cancer and has acceptable outcomes. Laparoscopic LEER is also feasible for lateral recurrence, but oncologic outcome may be modest in this limited preliminary study. Further studies using a larger sample size with a longer follow-up period is warranted to determine the indications for laparoscopic LEER.

Step by step Indiana pouch construction in a previously irradiated patient with a cervical cancer relapse

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy and radical pelvic surgery, either radical cystectomy or pelvic exenteration, is the golden standard treatment for infiltrating bladder carcinoma, as well as advanced or recurrent cervical, vulvar, vaginal and endometrial cancer. However, due to the poor radiation sensitivity of the cervix and vagina, a high-radiation dose is required, leading to early and/or late onset urogenital complications in approximately 50% of the patients.

CASE PRESENTATION

The following case report describes a 64-year-old native Russian woman presenting a relapse of a vaginal cuff squamous cell carcinoma, who underwent a laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) followed by a neobladder reconstruction based on the Indiana pouch (IP) technique. The process is described here step by step.

DISCUSSION

Indiana pouch urinary diversion was based on thorough research, the reproducibility of the technique, our urologist's experience with the Indiana Pouch, as well the lower rate of complications published in various separate series.

CONCLUSION

Indiana pouch is a successful continence urinary reservoir with a reproductible technique, however long-term observation is needed.