Search

STUDY QUESTION How should fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma be performed? SUMMARY ANSWER Forty-eight recommendations were formulated on fertility-sparing treatment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The standard surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma consisting of total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy drastically affects the quality of life of patients and creates a challenge for clinicians. Recent evidence-based guidelines of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in endometrial carcinoma in a multidisciplinary setting. While addressing also work-up for fertility preservation treatments and the management and follow-up for fertility preservation, it was considered relevant to further extend the guidance on fertility-sparing treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A collaboration was set up between the ESGO, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), aiming to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines focusing on key aspects of fertility-sparing treatment in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS ESGO/ESHRE/ESGE nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practising clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (11 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2016, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgement was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 95 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The multidisciplinary development group formulated 48 recommendations in four sections; patient selection, tumour clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and special issues. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Of the 48 recommendations, none could be based on level I evidence and only 16 could be based on level II evidence, implicating that 66% of the recommendations are supported only by observational data, professional experience and consensus of the development group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These recommendations provide guidance to professionals caring for women with endometrial carcinoma, including but not limited to professionals in the field of gynaecological oncology, onco-fertility, reproductive surgery, endoscopy, conservative surgery and histopathology, and will help towards a holistic and multidisciplinary approach for this challenging clinical scenario. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESGO, ESHRE and ESGE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. G.S. has reported grants from MSD Italia S.r.l., advisory boards for Storz, Bayer, Astrazeneca, Metronic, TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l and Johnson & Johnson, and honoraria for lectures from Clovis Oncology Italy S.r.l. M.G. has reported advisory boards for Gedeon Richter and Merck. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER This document represents the views of ESHRE, ESGO and ESGE which are the result of consensus between the relevant stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ObjectiveTo assess the value of preoperative18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan, combined with clinical variables, in predicting complete cytoreduction in selected patients with advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsWe carried out a multicenter, observational, retrospective study evaluating patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer in two Spanish centers between January 2017 and January 2022. Inclusion criteria were histological confirmation of invasive epithelial ovarian carcinoma; preoperative International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV; upfront cytoreductive surgery; and18F-FDG PET/CT performed 1 month prior to surgery. A modified18F-FDG PET/CT peritoneal cancer index score was calculated for all patients. Clinical variables and preoperative18F-FDG PET/CT findings were analyzed and a multivariate model was constructed. A predictive score based on the odds ratio of the variables was calculated to determine patient selection.ResultsA total of 45 patients underwent primary cytoreductive surgery. Complete resection was achieved in 36 (80%) patients. On multivariate analysis, two clinical variables (age ≥58 years and American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥3) and two preoperative18F-FDG PET/CT scan findings (presence of extra-abdominal lymph node involvement and modified peritoneal cancer index value of 6 or more) were associated with gross residual disease. For this multivariate model predictive of non-complete cytoreduction, the area under the curve was 0.881. A predictive value of ≥5 was the most predictive cut-off for gross residual disease. Complete resection rate was 91.7% in patients with a score of ≤4 and 33.3% in patients with a score of ≥5 points on the predictive score.ConclusionsIn selected patients, a predictive score value ≥5 may be consider as a cut-off point for triaging patients to diagnostic laparoscopy before the primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESP In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined. publishersversion published

Background: During the SARS-cov2 pandemic, to evaluate if the clinical protocols in gynecology oncology assistance were changed and, to assess the perception for the management of these disease in the surgeon. Methods: The data were collected by an anonymous and voluntary survey which was sent via email to professionals dedicated to the field of gynaecological oncology in Spain. Results: A total of 75 professionals completed the online survey, 93.2% reported working in a public hospital and 62.5% in a tertiary level hospital. 97.3% belonged to hospitals treating patients with SARS-CoV2 infection. An 85.1% of respondents showed concern about the SARS-CoV2 pandemic and 52.1% indicated the pandemic influenced the diagnostic and therapeutic quality of oncologic patients. SARS-CoV2 PCR on nasopharyngeal exudate was always performed before surgical interventions by 97.3%, being considered best triage method by 94.4%. An 87.5% reported no change in the type of surgical approach during the pandemic. Limitations in accessing special protective equipment against SARS-CoV2 were found by 62.5%. An impact on the follow-up of patients with gynaecological cancers due to pandemic was referred by a 70.4%. Conclusions: Most of Spanish gynecologist oncologist reported that COVD 19 pandemic has affected their clinical practice. The major measures implemented were an increase of telemedicine, a decrease the visits to high-risk or symptomatic patients and the use of SARS-CoV2 screening prior to surgery.

Purpose The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic factors related to the recurrence rate and overall survival of patients with undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. Methods An international multicenter study involving 43 international centers, the SARCUT study, collected 966 uterine sarcoma cases; among them 39 cases corresponded to undifferentiated uterine sarcoma and where included in the present subanalysis. The risk factors related to the oncological outcomes where analyzed. Results The median age of the patients was 63 (range 14–85) years. Seventeen (43.5%) patients presented FIGO stage I. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 15.3% and 12-months disease-free survival (DFS) 41%. FIGO stage I was significantly associated with a better prognosis. In addition, patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy showed significant longer disease-free survival compared to those without adjuvant radiotherapy (20.5 vs. 4.0 months, respectively; p = 0.04) and longer overall survival (34.7 vs. 18.2 months, respectively; p = 0.05). Chemotherapy administration was associated with shorter DFS (HR 4.41, 95% CI 1.35–14.43, p = 0.014). Persistent disease after primary treatment (HR = 6.86, 95%CI 1.51–31.09, p = 0.012) and FIGO stage IV (HR 4.12, 95%CI 1.37–12.44, p = 0.011) showed significant worse prognosis for OS. Conclusion FIGO stage seems to be the most important prognostic factor in patients with undifferentiated uterine sarcoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy seems to be significantly associated also to a better disease-free and overall survival. On the contrary, the role of chemotherapy administration remains unclear since was associated to a shorted DFS.

Our aim was to review the current knowledge of the role of fluorescence imaging for intraoperative intestinal assessment in gynecological surgery.A computer-based systematic review was performed from 2000 to 2020. All articles describing the use of indocyanine green (ICG) applied to bowel assessments in gynecology or endometriosis surgery were considered for review.ICG is an effective tool for assessing bowel vascularization, potentially preventing anastomotic leakage and recto-vaginal fistula and can therefore be useful for endometriosis surgery or bowel assessment in gynecological oncology procedures. Real-time characterization of the hypovascular pattern of endometriotic nodules has been associated with a larger nodule size and lower microvessel density, helping surgeons choose the best transecting line and the most appropriate technique. ICG angiography allows for a laparoscopic and intrarectal bowel assessment, which can act as a double check of bowel perfusion, enabling the assessment of mucosa vascularization. ICG fluorescence can guide intraoperative decision-making after intestinal anastomosis, discoid resection, and rectal shaving, preventing anastomotic leakage and postoperative recto-vaginal fistula in low anterior resections.ICG angiography provides a better intestinal assessment. Larger, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to validate the technique and confirm these encouraging results.

Objectives: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and mini-laparoscopic surgery (Mini-LPS) have been performed with comparable results to conventional laparoscopy. However, there are few data on the comparison between them. Our main objective was to compare LESS and Mini-LPS in terms of surgical time, postoperative pain, and hospital stay in patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign pathology. Design: It is a retrospective international multicentric study carried out in 5 centers including 2 Spanish and 3 Italian. Methods: Data from patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign pathology between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015, were reviewed. We collected the clinical-pathological characteristics of the patients and the perioperative results. The main variables of the study were surgical time, the switch to oral analgesia, and the hospital stay. The two comparison groups in the study included patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign pathology by LESS or by Mini-LPS. The decision to perform the type of procedure was left to the discretion of the surgeon, based primarily on the surgical skills and experience of the center. All data were collected retrospectively by an online encrypted platform. Results: 161 patients were included in the study. 104 (64.6%) patients underwent LESS hysterectomy and 57 (35.4%) Mini-LPS. Median surgical time was significantly longer in the LESS group when compared to the Mini-LPS group (120 vs. 75 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Moreover, longer median hospital stay was observed in the LESS group compared to Mini-LPS (48 vs. 36 h, respectively; p < 0.001). Conversion of the technique to conventional LPS was performed in 4 (2.5%) patients, all of them in the Mini-LPS group (p = 0.015). Limitations: It is a retrospective study with the biases that this implies. Furthermore, some variables have been incompletely registered in the database, which implies loss of information. This is a nonrandomized study since the decision to intervene with one or another technique was made by the surgeon, which generated 2 nonhomogeneous groups in terms of the number of patients. On the other hand, all the patients who underwent Mini-LPS hysterectomy belonged to the same center, which may have made these results center dependent. Conclusions: Significant shorter surgical time and shorter hospital stay were observed in patients undergoing Mini-LPS hysterectomy compared to LESS technique; however, intraoperative complications related to instrumentation flaws were higher in the mini-LPS group that required conversion to standard laparoscopy in all cases. Both ultra-minimally invasive techniques seem safe to perform hysterectomies for benign pathology and emphasize the importance in surgical training to adapt them to our current practice.

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether compliance with European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) surgery quality indicators impacts disease-free survival in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 15 ESGO quality indicators were assessed in the SUCCOR database (patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 2009 IB1, FIGO 2018 IB1, and IB2 cervical cancer between January 2013 and December 2014), and the final score ranged between 0 and 16 points. Centers with more than 13 points were classified as high-quality indicator compliance centers. We constructed a weighted cohort using inverse probability weighting to adjust for the variables. We compared disease-free survival and overall survival using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis in the weighted cohort.ResultsA total of 838 patients were included in the study. The mean number of quality indicators compliance in this cohort was 13.6 (SD 1.45). A total of 479 (57.2%) patients were operated on at high compliance centers and 359 (42.8%) patients at low compliance centers. High compliance centers performed more open surgeries (58.4% vs 36.7%, pConclusionsPatients with early cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in centers with high compliance with ESGO quality indicators had a lower risk of recurrence and death.

The main objective was to analyze the rate of bilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection in endometrial cancer using indocyanine green (ICG) as a unique tracer compared to Technetium99 + ICG. As secondary objectives, we analyzed the drainage pattern and factors that might affect the oncological outcomes. A case-control ambispective study was carried out on consecutive patients at our center. Data on the SLN biopsy with ICG collected prospectively were compared to retrospective data on the use of a double-tracer technique including Technetium99 + ICG. In total, 194 patients were enrolled and assigned to both groups, in which the group with both tracers (controls) included 107 (54.9%) patients and the ICG-alone group (cases) included 87 (45.1%) patients. The rate of bilateral drainage was significantly higher in the ICG group (98.9% vs. 89.7%; p = 0.013). The median number of nodes retrieved was higher in the control group (three vs. two nodes; p < 0.01). We did not find survival differences associated with the tracer used (p = 0.85). We showed significant differences in terms of disease-free survival regarding the SLN location (p < 0.01), and obturator fossa retrieved nodes showed better prognosis compared to external iliac. The use of ICG as a single tracer for SLN detection in endometrial cancer patients seemed to obtain higher rates of bilateral detection with similar oncological outcomes.

BackgroundThe molecular classification of endometrial cancer revolutionized our knowledge of its biology but so far has not affected our surgical approach. The exact risk of extra-uterine metastasis and hence the type of surgical staging for each of the four molecular subgroups are currently unknown.Primary ObjectiveTo determine the association between molecular classification and disease stage.Study HypothesisEach endometrial cancer molecular subgroup has a specific pattern of spread and this pattern of spread could guide the extent of surgical staging.Trial DesignProspective, multicenter studyMajor Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaParticipants eligible for inclusion in this study must meet all the following criteria: women ≥18 years with primary endometrial cancer, any histology and stage.Primary EndpointNumber and site of metastasis in each endometrial cancer molecular subgroup.Sample Size1000 patients will be enrolled.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsThe trial will last 6 years: 4 years of accrual, and 2 years of follow-up of all patients. Results on staging and oncological outcomes are expected in 2027 and 2029, respectively.Trial RegistrationThe study has been accepted by UZ Leuven Ethical Committee. Belg. Reg. nr: B3222022000997

Purpose Current guidelines for surveillance strategy in cervical cancer are rigid, recommending the same strategy for all survivors. The aim of this study was to develop a robust model allowing for individualised surveillance based on a patient's risk profile. Methods Data of 4343 early-stage patients with cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the international SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical Cancer) consortium. The Cox proportional hazards model predicting disease-free survival (DFS) was developed and internally validated. The risk score, derived from regression coefficients of the model, stratified the cohort into significantly distinctive risk groups. On its basis, the annual recurrence risk model (ARRM) was calculated. Results Five variables were included in the prognostic model: maximal pathologic tumour diameter; tumour histotype; grade; number of positive pelvic lymph nodes; and lymphovascular space invasion. Five risk groups significantly differing in prognosis were identified with a five-year DFS of 97.5%, 94.7%, 85.2% and 63.3% in increasing risk groups, whereas a two-year DFS in the highest risk group equalled 15.4%. Based on the ARRM, the annual recurrence risk in the lowest risk group was below 1% since the beginning of follow-up and declined below 1% at years three, four and >5 in the medium-risk groups. In the whole cohort, 26% of recurrences appeared at the first year of the follow-up, 48% by year two and 78% by year five. Conclusion The ARRM represents a potent tool for tailoring the surveillance strategy in early-stage patients with cervical cancer based on the patient's risk status and respective annual recurrence risk. It can easily be used in routine clinical settings internationally.

The most common cancer in women worldwide is cervical cancer. For early-stage disease the standard treatment is radical hysterectomy. One of the main issues faced by surgeons performing a radical hysterectomy is the wide variation in the terminology used to define the procedure and the nomenclature used to describe the anatomical spaces critical to the success of the surgery. The aim of this review was to synthesize currently used anatomical landmarks with relation to surgical avascular spaces for the performance of radical hysterectomy.A computer-based comprehensive review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and SciSearch databases, as well as National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology guidelines, was performed. With all relevant data collected, and previous anatomical studies during surgeries and on cadavers performed by authors, a manuscript of the definition of avascular spaces, methods of dissection, and anatomical limits was prepared.Avascular pelvic spaces developed during radical hysterectomy, such as the paravesical, pararectal, ureter tunnel, and paravaginal, were considered and included in the manuscript. A clear definition of avascular spaces may aid a better understanding of the anatomical aspects of the radical hysterectomy. It could improve surgeon knowledge of the structures that need to be preserved and those that need to be resected during a radical hysterectomy. Additionally, the detailed exposure of anatomical boundaries will facilitate the appropriate tailored radicality depending on the risk factors of the disease. Moreover, knowledge of these spaces could make pelvic surgery safer and easier for other types of gynecological and non-gynecological procedures.

Aim Our study aims to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy using indocyanine green (ICG) for the surgical staging of early-stage endometrial cancer in comparison to technetium-99 m use. Methods We conducted an observational retrospective study with patients diagnosed of endometrial cancer and FIGO stages I-II. All participants were injected technetium-99m the day prior to the surgery and underwent lymphoscintigraphy along with single-photon emission computed tomography. In addition, all patients were administered intraoperatively ICG injection to detect sentinel lymph node biopsy. The surgical staging was then completed according to the European Society for Medical Oncology preoperative risk category. Data obtained from the analysis of technetium-99m detection was compared to ICG detection. Results A total of 53 women with endometrial cancer were included in the study, 49 (92.5%) of them showed drainage preoperatively in the single-photon emission computed tomography and/or lymphoscintigraphy. The intraoperative bilateral detection rate for technetium-99 m was 26 (49.1%) patients compared to 40 (75.5%) patients with ICG (p = 0.013). We observed a 42.5% increase in the mean number of lymph nodes retrieved by ICG compared to technetium-99m (2.85 vs 2,0 nodes; p = 0.002). We intraoperatively identified 164 lymph nodes, 104 (63.4%) located in both obturator areas and external iliac vessels. Conclusion The use of ICG for the performance of sentinel node biopsy in patients with endometrial cancer seems safe and could be superior to technetium-99 m, since it offers a higher bilateral detection rate and nodal retrieval, resulting in the possibility to perform safely less full staging lymphadenectomies.

Objective Based on the SUCCOR study database, our primary objective was to identify the independent clinical pathological variables associated with the risk of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Our secondary goal was to design and validate a risk predictive index (RPI) for classifying patients depending on the risk of recurrence. Methods Overall, 1116 women were included from January 2013 to December 2014. We randomly divided our sample into two cohorts: discovery and validation cohorts. The test group was used to identify the independent variables associated with relapse, and with these variables, we designed our RPI. The index was applied to calculate a relapse risk score for each participant in the validation group. Results A previous cone biopsy was the most significant independent variable that lowered the rate of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17–0.60). Additionally, patients with a tumor diameter >2 cm on preoperative imaging assessment (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.33–3.5) and operated by the minimally invasive approach (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00–2.57) were more likely to have a recurrence. Based on these findings, patients in the validation cohort were classified according to the RPI of low, medium, or high risk of relapse, with rates of 3.4%, 9.8%, and 21.3% observed in each group, respectively. With a median follow-up of 58 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 97.2% for the low-risk group, 88.0% for the medium-risk group, and 80.5% for the high-risk group (p < 0.001). Conclusion Previous conization to radical hysterectomy was the most powerful protective variable of relapse. Our risk predictor index was validated to identify patients at risk of recurrence.

ObjectiveUterine sarcomas are a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies that include different histological sub-types. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the impact of the different prognostic factors on overall survival and disease-free survival of patients with uterine sarcoma.MethodsThis international multicenter retrospective study included 683 patients diagnosed with uterine sarcoma at 46 different institutions between January 2001 and December 2007.ResultsThe 5-year overall survival for leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, undifferentiated sarcoma, and adenosarcoma was 65.3%, 78.3%, 52.4%, and 89.5%, respectively, and the 5-year disease-free survival was 54.3%, 68.1%, 40.3%, and 85.3%, respectively. The 10-year overall survival for leiomyosarcoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma, undifferentiated sarcoma and adenosarcoma was 52.6%, 64.8%, 52.4%, and 79.5%, respectively, and the 10-year disease-free survival was 44.7%, 53.3%, 40.3%, and 77.5%, respectively. The most significant factor associated with overall survival in all types of sarcoma except for adenosarcoma was the presence of residual disease after primary treatment. In adenosarcoma, disease stage at diagnosis was the most important factor (hazard ratio 17.7; 95% CI 2.86 to 109.93).ConclusionIncomplete cytoreduction, tumor persistence, advanced stage, extra-uterine and tumor margin involvement, and the presence of necrosis were relevant prognostic factors significantly affecting overall survival in uterine sarcoma. The presence of lymph vascular space involvement and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher risk of relapse.