RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that the manipulation of neoplastic tissue during hysteroscopy may lead to dissemination of tumor cells into the peritoneal cavity and worsen prognosis and overall survival. The goal of this study was to assess the oncological safety comparing hysteroscopy to Pipelle blind biopsy in the presurgical diagnosis of patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicentric study among patients who had received primary surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. A multivariate statistical analysis model was used to compare relapse and survival rates in patients who had been evaluated preoperatively either by hysteroscopy or Pipelle biopsy. The relapse rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival were assessed as the main outcomes. The histological type, tumor size, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, surgical approach, use of a uterine manipulator, and adjuvant treatment were also included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1731 women from 15 centers were included: 1044 in the hysteroscopy group and 687 in the Pipelle sampling group. 225 patients relapsed during the 10 year follow-up period: 139 (13.3%) in the hysteroscopy group and 86 (12.4%) in the Pipelle sampling group. There is no evidence of an association between the use of hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method and relapse rate (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.16), lower disease-free survival (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.66; p=0.15), or overall survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; p=0.76). CONCLUSION: Hysteroscopy is a safe diagnostic method for patients with endometrial cancer with no impact on oncological outcomes when compared with sampling by Pipelle.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The main goal of this study is to assess the impact of tumor manipulation on the presence of lympho-vascular space invasion and its influence on oncological results. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multi-centric study amongst patients who had received primary surgical treatment for apparently early-stage endometrial cancer. A multivariate statistical analysis model was designed to assess the impact that tumor manipulation (with the use of uterine manipulator or preoperative hysteroscopy) has on lympho-vascular development (LVSI) in the final surgical specimen. RESULTS: A total of 2852 women from 15 centers were included and divided into two groups based on the lympho-vascular status in the final surgical specimen: 2265 (79.4%) had no LVSI and 587 (20.6%) presented LVSI. The use of uterine manipulator was associated with higher chances of lympho-vascular involvement regardless of the type used: Balloon manipulator (HR: 95% CI 4.64 (2.99-7.33); p < 0.001) and No-Balloon manipulator ([HR]: 95% CI 2.54 (1.66-3.96); p < 0.001). There is no evidence of an association between the use of preoperative hysteroscopy and higher chances of lympho-vascular involvement (HR: 95% CI 0.90 (0.68-1.19); p = 0.479). CONCLUSION: Whilst performing common gynecological procedures, iatrogenic distention and manipulation of the uterine cavity are produced. Our study suggests that the use of uterine manipulator increases the rate of LVSI and, therefore, leads to poorer oncological results. Conversely, preoperative hysteroscopy does not show higher rates of LVSI involvement in the final surgical specimen and can be safely used.
RESUMEN
Background: Women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), WLWHs, are at high risk of developing anal cancer associated with high-risk human papilloma virus infection (HR-HPV). We analyzed the prevalence of anal HR-HPV infection and abnormal anal cytology in a cohort of WLWHs and assessed the risk factors for anal HR-HPV infection. Methods: We present a single-center, observational cross-sectional study. WLWHs who underwent anal cytology and anal human papilloma virus (HPV) testing were selected. High-resolution anoscopy was performed in cases of abnormal anal cytology. All suspicious lesions were biopsied. A univariate and multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze risk factors for abnormal anal screening. The results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In total, 400 WLWHs were studied. Of them, 334 met the eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the study. Abnormal anal cytology was detected in 39.5% of patients, and anal HR-HPV in 40.1%, with HPV 16 in 33 (26.6%) of them. Concomitant HR-HPV cervical infection was the only independent risk factor for HR-HPV anal infection (OR 1.67 95% CI, p < 0.001). Conclusions: WLWHs have a high prevalence of HR-HPV anal infection and anal cytologic abnormalities. HR-HPV cervical infection is the main predictor of HR-HPV anal infection.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The main goal of this study is to assess the diagnostic agreement between preoperative biopsy and definitive histology of the surgical specimen to determine which sampling method is most suitable for diagnosis of early-stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the correlation between three endometrial sampling methods (hysteroscopy, pipelle and D&C) in patients who had undergone preoperative endometrial biopsy and received primary surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. The primary objective was the agreement rate between hysteroscopy (HSC), endometrial biopsy (pipelle) and dilatation and curettage (D&C). RESULTS: A total of 1833 women who underwent preoperative sampling at 15 centers were included: 1042 biopsies were performed by HSC, 703 by pipelle and 88 by D&C. All three methods presented a moderate diagnostic concordance (κ = 0.40-0.61) with the definitive specimen's histology: HSC (κ = 0.47), pipelle sampling (κ = 0.48) and D&C (κ = 0.48). Likewise, a subgroup analysis was performed by histological subtype comparing HSC and endometrial biopsy, showing that neither is superior as a diagnostic method. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, the use of pipelle sampling could become an adequate diagnostic method in endometrial cancer due to its similar agreement to HSC, ease of use and affordability.