The fluorescence imaging for laparoscopic and laparotomic endometrial sentinel lymph node biopsy (FILLES) trial: Siriraj gynecologic sentinel node of endometrial cancer (SiGN-En) study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to establish the detection rate of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies and to determine the sensitivity and false-negative rate of SLN biopsies compared with those of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomies in endometrial cancer. METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with endometrial cancer who were scheduled for surgical staging. Patients with a history of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, an abnormal liver function test, or an allergy to indocyanine green (ICG) were excluded. All patients underwent surgical staging with an ICG injection at the cervix. SLNs were identified by a near-infrared fluorescent camera. All SLNs were sent to a pathologist for ultrastaging. RESULTS: From November 2019 to June 2023, 142 patients underwent SLN mapping and surgical staging. SLNs were not detected bilaterally in 8 patients. The detection rate of the SLN biopsies in this study was 91.2%. Thus, the accuracy of the SLN biopsies was 97.6%. The sensitivity for finding metastatic SLNs was 84.2%, with a negative predictive value of 97.22%. CONCLUSIONS: A SLN biopsy in endometrial cancer has a high detection rate and high accuracy. However, surgical expertise and a learning curve are required.

Comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes in patients with clear cell ovarian carcinoma associated with and without endometriosis.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical characteristics, surgical and oncologic outcomes of clear cell ovarian cancer among patients with cancer arising from endometriosis, cancer coexisting with endometriosis, and cancer without endometriosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with clear cell ovarian cancer during January 1998-March 2013 was performed. All histopathology specimens were reviewed by a gynecologic pathologist and classified into one of the three following endometriosis status groups: arising group, coexisting group, or without group. The primary outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS). The secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, surgical morbidities, response rate, recurrence rate, and cancer-specific death. RESULTS: Finally, 249 patients were included. There were 82, 96, and 71 patients in the arising, coexisting, and without groups, respectively. Regarding baseline characteristics among groups, the without group was significantly older and had more advanced diseases. There was a significant difference in progression-free survival between the arising group and the without group (p = 0.003). Five-year progression-free survival rates were 62.8% in the arising group, 50.2% in the coexisting group, and 38.3% in the without group. DSS was not significantly different among groups. Multivariate analysis revealed ovarian surface invasion (HR = 2.76) and pelvic lymphadenectomy (HR = 0.39) to be independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival, whereas no remission after primary treatment (HR = 8.03) and pelvic lymphadenectomy (HR = 0.21) were prognostic factors for DSS. Intraoperative blood loss and residual tumor were significantly higher in the without group. CONCLUSIONS: Endometriosis status was found not to significantly influence surgical and oncologic outcomes in patients with clear cell ovarian cancer.

Clinical outcomes of stage I endometrial carcinoma patients treated with surgery alone: Siriraj Hospital experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the recurrence rates and patterns of failure in patients with stage I endometrial carcinoma after surgical staging without adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Medical records of 229 patients with stage I endometrial carcinoma, treated with surgery alone between 2002 and 2010 at Siriraj Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The primary objective of this study was recurrence rates. The secondary objectives were patterns of failure, disease-free survival, overall survival, and prognostic factors related to outcomes. RESULTS: During median follow-up time of 53.3 months, 11 recurrences (4.8%) occurred with a median time to recurrence of 21.2 months (range, 7.7 to 77.8 months). Vaginal recurrence was the most common pattern of failure (8/11 patients, 72.7%). Other recurrences were pelvic, abdominal and multiple metastases. Factors that appeared to be prognostic factors on univariate analyses were age and having high intermediate risk (HIR) (Gynecologic Oncology Group [GOG] 99 criteria), none of which showed significance in multivariate analysis. The recurrence rates were higher in the patients with HIR criteria (22.2% vs. 4.1%, p=0.013) or patients with stage IB, grade 2 endometrioid carcinoma (9.4% vs. 4.3%, p=0.199). Five-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival were 93.9% (95% CI, 89.9 to 5.86) and 99.5% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.9), respectively. CONCLUSION: The patients with low risk stage I endometrial carcinoma had excellent outcomes with surgery alone. Our study showed that no single factor was demonstrated to be an independent predictor for recurrence.