Adoption of minimally invasive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with metastatic uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for advanced stage uterine cancer is increasing. We analyzed the use and outcomes of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for women with stage IV uterine cancer who received NACT and underwent IDS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify women with stage IV uterine cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 and treated with NACT. Among women who underwent IDS, overall survival (OS) was compared between those who underwent laparotomy vs a minimally invasive approach. To account for imbalances in confounders, a propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1618 women were identified. Minimally invasive IDS was performed in 31.1% and increased from 16.2% in 2010 to 40.4% in 2017 (P < 0.001). More recent year of diagnosis and performance of surgery at a comprehensive cancer center were associated with increased use of MIS (P < 0.05). Women with serous and clear cell tumors, and carcinosarcomas (compared to endometrioid tumors), as well as Medicaid coverage (compared to commercial insurance) were less likely to undergo an MIS approach (P < 0.05). The median OS was 28 months (95% CI 23.7-30.7) and 24.3 months (95% CI 22.3-26.1) for MIS and laparotomy, respectively. After propensity score balancing, there was no association between the use of MIS and survival (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with stage IV uterine cancer treated with NACT performance of minimally invasive debulking surgery is increasing. Compared to laparotomy, MIS does not appear to negatively impact survival.

Reproducibility of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) assessment in endometrial cancer.

AIMS: Lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in endometrial cancer (EC) is an important prognostic variable impacting on a patient's individual recurrence risk and adjuvant treatment recommendations. Recent work has shown that grading the extent of LVSI further improves its prognostic strength in patients with stage I endometrioid EC. Despite this, there is little information on the reproducibility of LVSI assessment in EC. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate interobserver agreement in discriminating true LVSI from LVSI mimics (Phase I) and reproducibility of grading extent of LVSI (Phase II). METHODS AND RESULTS: Scanned haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides of endometrioid EC (EEC) with a predefined possible LVSI focus were hosted on a website and assessed by a panel of six European gynaecological pathologists. In Phase I, 48 H&E slides were included for LVSI assessment and in Phase II, 42 H&E slides for LVSI grading. Each observer was instructed to apply the criteria for LVSI used in daily practice. The degree of agreement was measured using the two-way absolute agreement average-measures intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Reproducibility of LVSI assessment (ICC = 0.64, P < 0.001) and LVSI grading (ICC = 0.62, P < 0.001) in EEC was substantial among the observers. CONCLUSIONS: Given the good reproducibility of LVSI, this study further supports the important role of LVSI in decision algorithms for adjuvant treatment.

The prognostic significance of aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: Potential implications for selective aortic lymph node assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of aortic vs. pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis among women with endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using data from the SEER 18 Registries we identified 3650 women with LN positive (stage IIIC) EC. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare mortality between women with stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 disease. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between stage III sub-stage (IIIC1 vs. IIIC2) and survival. RESULTS: Endometrioid tumors were more common among women with stage IIIC1 than IIIC2 tumors (62.5% vs. 54.3%) while, non-endometrioid histologies were more common among stage IIIC2. In the multivariable model, stage IIIC2 was associated with higher all-cause (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.69) and EC-specific mortality (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.77) compared with IIIC1. Women with non-endometrioid EC had poor survival, in particular, women with carcinosarcomas had higher EC-specific mortality compared to women with endometrioid EC (HR = 3.32, 95% CI = 2.71-4.07). When stratifying women according to substage, older age and non-endometrioid histology were associated with higher EC-specific mortality. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower all-cause (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.88) and EC-specific (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.95) mortality. CONCLUSION: Women with aortic LN positive EC are more likely to die from their disease. Older women and non-endometrioid histologies are more likely to have aortic LN involvement. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower EC mortality.

Clinical assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery for unresectable advanced ovarian cancer.

Sixty-five patients with unresectable advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent exploratory laparotomy or unilateral oophorectomy were reviewed. Forty-five of 65 patients received 3.8 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and were successfully debulked at interval cytoreductive surgery (IRS); 31 of 45 showed no evidence of disease. Patients with residuals <1 cm at IRS had a high possibility of achieving clinical remission. Patients who failed to receive IRS showed poor prognosis. Also, 63 patients who underwent conventional primary debulking surgery with residuals >1 cm were investigated as a contrast. No significant difference was observed in patient survival between the NAC group and the conventional treatment group. NAC and IRS offered patients with unresectable tumors survival similar to that of those with suboptimally resectable tumors at primary debulking. We conclude that this strategy has potential benefits for the patients with clinically aggressive ovarian cancer who are unable to receive standard treatment.