Pelvic Exenteration - Past, Present and Future.

Background: Bearing in mind that the open procedure is already validated by multiple studies, the article aims to prove that pelvic exenteration performed in a minimally invasive fashion might offer better survival and to potentially identify prognostic factors for the outcome of these patients. Material and Methods: Data regarding past and present classifications and surgical indications are presented. Patient data were collected retrospectively. Results: The most frequent diseases treated with pelvic exenteration, in terms of the hystological type, were gynecological malignancy and squamous cell carcinoma. Recurrent pelvic disease was found in 68.2% of patients. R0 resection was achieved in 72.7% of patients in the MI group, and in 73.7% of patients in the OP group. Peri-operative morbidity was reported to be 56.6% for open surgery, and 18.1% for minimally invasive. Average DFS was 20.15 months, ranging from 1.5 to 70.3 months, while the OS was calculated to be 38.1 months (0.33 1508) up until November 2023. Conclusion: Pelvic exenteration is a continuously improving surgical procedure, open approach being favored to minimally invasive one. On the other hand, hospitalization and morbidity are reduced when choosing the latter. R0 and lymph node status are important predictors for overall survival, as well as major early postoperative complications. All in all, pelvic exenteration is still a promising surgical procedure to extend cancer patients lives.

Robotic or laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for gynecological malignancies: feasible options to open surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To acknowledge that minimally invasive pelvic exenteration is a feasible alternative to open surgery and potentially identify prediction factors for patient outcome. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective single team analysis of 12 consecutive cases, set between January 2008 and January 2022. RESULTS: Six anterior and 6 total pelvic exenterations were performed. A 75% of cases were treated using a robotic approach. In 4 cases, an ileal conduit was used for urinary reconstruction. Mean operative time was 360±30.7 minutes. for anterior pelvic exenterations and 440±40.7 minutes. for total pelvic exenterations and mean blood loss was 350±35 mL. An R0 resection was performed in 9 cases (75%) and peri-operative morbidity was 16.6%, with no deaths recorded. Median disease-free survival was 12 months (10-14) and overall survival (OS) was 20 months (1-127). In terms of OS, 50% of patients were still alive 24 months after surgery. Taking into consideration the follow up period,16.6% of females under 50 or above 70 years old did not reach the cut off and 4 out of 6 patients that failed to reach it were diagnosed with distant metastases or local recurrence (p=0.169). CONCLUSION: Our experience is very much consistent with literature in regard to primary site of cancer, post-operative complications, R0 resection and survival rates. On the other hand, minimally invasive approach and urinary reconstruction type were in contrast with cited publications. Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration is indeed a safe and feasible procedure, providing patients selection is appropriately performed.

Mind the Gap Between Scientific Literature Recommendations and Effective Implementation. Is There Still a Role for Surgery in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Cervical Carcinoma?

According to evidence accumulated in the last years, many cancer centers recommend a treatment plan based solely on chemo-radiotherapy and exclude surgery from the treatment options in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). In Romania, surgery was at the forefront of therapeutic options. Nevertheless, current data shows that in fact, a large number of patients are still referred to surgery in various stages of diagnosis and treatment. It was noted that recommendations may differ, in spite of the wide dissemination of the literature data.Works published so far, discussing the role of surgery in LACC treatment shows a lack of consensus. A group of experts in oncology (SURCECAN research group - Surgery of Cervical Cancer) met for a session of the Romanian Surgical Society (Bucharest) on April 18, 2018. They found that LACC therapeutic strategy in Romania may differ somewhat from the European recommendations.On top of that, late enrolement to RT and low acces to specialized centers are the problem. Performing surgery not only allows the evaluation of the pathological response to chemo-radiotherapy, but also achieves a better local control. In conclusion, there is still a place for surgery within locally advanced cervical cancer treatment options. More trials need to be carried out in order to confirm the findings and establish high levels of confidence for each piece of information provided.