Does sentinel node mapping impact morbidity and quality of life in endometrial cancer?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of post-operative complications and quality of life (QoL) related to sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy vs systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. METHODS: A prospective cohort included women with early-stage endometrial carcinoma who underwent lymph node staging, grouped as follows: SLN group (sentinel lymph node only) and SLN+LND group (sentinel lymph node biopsy with addition of systematic lymphadenectomy). The patients had at least 12 months of follow-up, and QoL was assessed by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cervical Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and EORTC-QLQ-Cx24. Lymphedema was also assessed by clinical evaluation and perimetry. RESULTS: 152 patients were included: 113 (74.3%) in the SLN group and 39 (25.7%) in the SLN+LND group. Intra-operative surgical complications occurred in 2 (1.3%) cases, and all belonged to SLN+LND group. Patients undergoing SLN+LND had higher overall complication rates than those undergoing SLN alone (33.3% vs 14.2%; p=0.011), even after adjusting for confound factors (OR=3.45, 95% CI 1.40 to 8.47; p=0.007). The SLN+LND group had longer surgical time (p=0.001) and need for admission to the intensive care unit (p=0.001). Moreover, the incidence of lymphocele was found in eight cases in the SLN+LND group (0 vs 20.5%; p<0.001). There were no differences in lymphedema rate after clinical evaluation and perimetry. However, the lymphedema score was highest when lymphedema was reported by clinical examination at 6 months (30.1 vs 7.8; p<0.001) and at 12 months (36.3 vs 6.0; p<0.001). Regarding the overall assessment of QoL, there was no difference between groups at 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There was a higher overall rate of complications for the group undergoing systematic lymphadenectomy, as well as higher rates of lymphocele and lymphedema according to the symptom score. No difference was found in overall QoL between SLN and SLN+LND groups.

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.

Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology consensus on fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Several controversies remain on conservative management of cervical cancer. Our aim was to develop a consensus recommendation on important and novel topics of fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS: The consensus was sponsored by the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO) from March 2020 to September 2020 and included a multidisciplinary team of 55 specialists. A total of 21 questions were addressed and they were assigned to specialists' groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Further, the coordinators evaluated the recommendations that were classified by the level of evidence, and finally, they were voted by all participants. RESULTS: The questions included controversial topics on tumor assessment, surgical treatment, and surveillance in conservative management of cervical cancer. The two topics with lower agreement rates were the role of minimally invasive approach in radical trachelectomy and parametrial preservation. Additionally, only three recommendations had <90% of agreement (fertility preservation in Stage Ib2, anti-stenosis device, and uterine transposition). CONCLUSIONS: As very few clinical trials have been developed in surgery for cervical cancer, most recommendations were supported by low levels of evidence. We addressed important and novel topics in conservative management of cervical cancer and our study may contribute to literature.

Sentinel lymph node mapping versus sentinel lymph node mapping with systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized trial (ALICE trial).

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggest that sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in endometrial cancer accurately detects lymph node metastasis. However, prospective randomized trials addressing the oncological outcomes of SLN biopsy in endometrial cancer without lymphadenectomy are lacking. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to confirm that SLN biopsy without systematic node dissection does not negatively impact oncological outcomes. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that there is no survival benefit in adding systematic lymphadenectomy to sentinel node mapping for endometrial cancer staging. Additionally, we aim to evaluate morbidity and impact in quality of life (QoL) after forgoing systematic lymphadenectomy. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a collaborative, multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized trial. After total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and SLN biopsy, patients will be randomized (1:1) into: (a) no further lymph node dissection or (b) systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. MAJOR INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria are patients with high-grade histologies (endometrioid G3, serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcoma), endometrioid G1 or G2 with imaging concerning for myometrial invasion of ≥50% or cervical invasion, clinically suitable to undergo systematic lymphadenectomy. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: The primary objective is to compare 3-year disease-free survival and the secondary objectives are 5-year overall survival, morbidity, incidence of lower limb lymphedema, and QoL after SLN mapping ± systematic lymphadenectomy in high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. SAMPLE SIZE: 178 participants will be randomized in this study with an estimated date for completing accrual of December 2024 and presenting results in 2027. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03366051.

Management of Early-Stage Vulvar Cancer.

Vulvar cancer is a rare gynecological malignancy since it represents 4% of all cancers of the female genital tract. The most common histological type is squamous cell carcinoma (90%). This type can be classified into two clinicopathological subtypes according to the etiology. The first subtype is associated with persistent human papillomavirus infection and is usually diagnosed in younger women. The second subtype is associated with lichen sclerosus condition, and in most cases is diagnosed in postmenopausal women. Currently, an increase in first subtype cases has been observed, which raised the concern about associated mortality and treatment morbidity among young women. Vulvar cancer treatment depends on histopathology grade and staging, but surgery with or without radiotherapy as adjuvant treatment is considered the gold standard. In recent decades, sentinel lymph node biopsy has been incorporated as part of the treatment. Therefore, we sought to review and discuss the advances documented in the literature about vulvar cancer focusing on the treatment of early-stage disease. Relevant articles, such as the GROINS-V studies and the GOG protocols, are presented in this review. Additionally, we discuss key points such as the evolution of treatment from invasive surgery with high morbidity, to more conservative approaches without compromising oncologic safety; the role of sentinel lymph node mapping in the initial staging, since it reduces the complications caused by inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy; the recurrences rates, since local recurrence is common and curable, however, groin-associated, or distant recurrences have a poor prognosis; and, finally, the long-term follow-up that is essential for all patients.

Squamous differentiation portends poor prognosis in low and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer presents well-defined risk factors: myometrial invasion, histological subtype, tumor grade, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). Some low and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer patients exhibited unexpected outcomes. This study aimed to investigate other clinical-pathological factors that might influence the recurrence rates of patients diagnosed with low and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: A case-control study from a cohort retrospective of 196 patients diagnosed with low and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer at a single institution from 2009 to 2014 was conducted. Medical records were reviewed to compare clinical (race, smoking, menopause age, body mass index) and pathological (endometrioid vs endometrioid with squamous differentiation, tumor differentiation grade, tumor location, endocervical invasion, LVSI) features of patients with recurrence (case) and without recurrence (control) of disease. Three controls for each case were matched for age and staging. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with recurrence were found (10.7%), of which 14 were stage IA, and 7 were stage IB. In accordance, 63 patients without recurrence were selected as controls. There were no significant differences in any clinical characteristics between cases and controls. Among pathological variables, presence of squamous differentiation (28.6% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.007), tumor differentiation grade 2 or 3 (57.1% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.037) and presence of endocervical invasion (28.6% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.103) were associated with disease recurrence on a univariate analysis. On multivariable analysis, only squamous differentiation was a significant risk factor for recurrence (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that squamous differentiation may be an adverse prognostic factor in patients with low and intermediate-risk endometrioid endometrial cancer, that showed a 5.6-fold increased risk for recurrence.