Prediction of non-resectability using the updated Predictive Index Value model assessed by imaging and surgery in tubo-ovarian cancer: a prospective multicenter ISAAC study.

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopy-based scoring system was developed by Fagotti et al (Fagotti or Predictive Index Value (PIV)score) based on the intraoperative presence or absence of carcinomatosis on predefined sites. Later, the authors updated the PIV score calculated only in the absence of one or both absolute criteria of non-resectability (mesenteric retraction and miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel) (updated PIV model). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of ultrasound to other imaging methods (contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) and whole-body diffusion-weighted (WB DWI)/MRI) in predicting non-resectable tumor (defined as residual disease>1 cm) using the updated PIV model in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer. The agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings as a reference was also calculated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a European prospective multicenter observational study. We included patients with suspected tubo-ovarian carcinoma who underwent preoperative staging and prediction of non-resectability at ultrasound, CT, WB-DWI/MRI and surgical exploration. The predictors of non-resectability were suspicious mesenteric retraction and/or miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel or if absent, a PIV>8 (updated PIV model). The PIV score ranges from 0 to 12 according to the presence of disease in six predefined intra-abdominal sites (great omentum, liver surface, lesser omentum/stomach/spleen, parietal peritoneum, diaphragms, bowel serosa/mesentery). The reference standard was surgical outcome, in terms of residual disease>1 cm, assessed by laparoscopy and/or laparotomy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the performance of the methods in predicting non-resectability was reported. Concordance between index tests at detection of disease at six predefined sites and intraoperative exploration as reference standard was also calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The study was between 2018 and 2022 in five European gynecological oncology centers. Data from 242 patients having both mandatory index tests (ultrasound and CT) were analyzed. 145/242 (59.9%) patients had no macroscopic residual tumor after surgery (R0) (5/145 laparoscopy and 140/145 laparotomy) and 17/242 (7.0%) had residual tumor ≤1cm (R1) (laparotomy). In 80/242 patients (33.1%), the residual tumor was >1 cm (R2), 30 of them underwent laparotomy and maximum surgery was carried out and 50/80 underwent laparoscopy and cytoreduction was not feasible in all of them. After excluding 18/242 (7.4%) patients operated on but not eligible for extensive surgery, the predictive performance of three imaging methods was analyzed in 167 women. The AUCs of all methods in discriminating between resectable and non-resectable tumor was 0.80 for ultrasound, 0.76 for CT, 0.71 for WB-DWI/MRI and 0.90 for surgical exploration. Ultrasound had the highest agreement (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.59 to 0.79) compared to CT and WB-DWI/MRI to assess all parameters included in the updated PIV model. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound showed non-inferiority to CT and to WB-DWI/MRI in discriminating between resectable and non-resectable tumor using the updated PIV model. Ultrasound had the best agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings in the assessment of parameters included in the updated PIV model. Ultrasound is an acceptable method to assess abdominal disease and predict non-resectability in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer in the hands of specially trained ultrasound examiners.

Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: After the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have undergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with different surgical approaches. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2. RESULTS: The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602-1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467-1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331-1.407; p = 0.630), respectively. CONCLUSION: There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment.