Accuracy and Survival Outcomes after National Implementation of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early Stage Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has recently been accepted to evaluate nodal status in endometrial cancer at early stage, which is key to tailoring adjuvant treatments. Our aim was to evaluate the national implementation of SLN biopsy in terms of accuracy to detect nodal disease in a clinical setting and oncologic outcomes according to the volume of nodal disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 29 Spanish centers participated in this retrospective, multicenter registry including patients with endometrial adenocarcinoma at preoperative early stage who had undergone SLN biopsy between 2015 and 2021. Each center collected data regarding demographic, clinical, histologic, therapeutic, and survival characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 892 patients were enrolled. After the surgery, 12.9% were suprastaged to FIGO 2009 stages III-IV and 108 patients (12.1%) had nodal involvement: 54.6% macrometastasis, 22.2% micrometastases, and 23.1% isolated tumor cells (ITC). Sensitivity of SLN biopsy was 93.7% and false negative rate was 6.2%. After a median follow up of 1.81 years, overall surivial and disease-free survival were significantly lower in patients who had macrometastases when compared with patients with negative nodes, micrometastases or ITC. CONCLUSIONS: In our nationwide cohort we obtained high sensitivity of SLN biopsy to detect nodal disease. The oncologic outcomes of patients with negative nodes and low-volume disease were similar after tailoring adjuvant treatments. In total, 22% of patients with macrometastasis and 50% of patients with micrometastasis were at low risk of nodal metastasis according to their preoperative risk factors, revealing the importance of SLN biopsy in the surgical management of patients with early stage EC.

When and Who Should Perform Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Surgery?

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common cause of death due to gynecologic malignancies. Most patients will be diagnosed at an advanced stage, and despite progress in both surgical procedures and novel targeted therapies, the overall survival of these patients remains very low. Among prognostic factors, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage and residual tumor after debulking surgery are the most widely reported. The current review aims to highlight the disparities in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer and the need for postgraduate training programs in order to accredit gynecologic oncologists. Despite an increase over the centralization of these patients, many are still not receiving specialized surgery.

The impact of pleural disease on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.

Malignant pleural effusion is the most common site of stage IV ovarian cancer. A positive cytology is required for a stage IVA diagnosis. Unfortunately, the accuracy rate of pleural cytology remains low. A number of factors have been identified as prognostic for clinical outcomes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and residual tumor after debulking surgery being the most widely reported. Thereby careful selection of patients is crucially important, yet no preoperative predictor has proven sufficiently reliable to predict surgical outcome. The authors present a review of the literature on stage IV ovarian cancer specifically focusing on prognostic value of FIGO stage, preoperative workup, role of video-assisted thoracic surgery and maximal cytoreductive surgery.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients.

Introduction: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors. Material and methods: This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS. Results: From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival. Conclusions: With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

Ovulation induction treatment and risk of borderline ovarian tumors.

AIM: Research has suggested an association between the use of ovulation induction drugs and the risk of ovarian cancer. It has also been proposed that there may be pre-cancerous alterations in the ovary which themselves are the cause of infertility. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between the use of ovulation induction drugs and the appearance of borderline ovarian tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a case-control study in which the study group comprised 42 women with a borderline ovarian tumor and the control group comprised 257 women with benign ovarian pathology. RESULTS: No differences were found between the borderline tumor and control groups (14.3% vs. 27.2%, respectively) in terms of infertility history. Nor were there any differences between the groups with respect to the type of drug used, whether clomiphene citrate (9.5% vs. 6.2%, respectively) or gonadotropins (7.1% vs. 10.1%, respectively). Analysis in terms of the number of cycles administered also failed to reveal any differences. The mean number of cycles with clomiphene citrate/gonadotropins was 2.50 +/- 1.00 and 3.00 +/- 2.64 in the borderline tumor group and 2.44 +/- 1.75 and 3.27 +/- 2.25 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our series produced no evidence that ovulation induction treatment predisposes women to the development of borderline ovarian tumors.