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.

Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P<.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.20; P=.006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97; P=.027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83; P=.026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P=.63). CONCLUSION: In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.

Endometrial cancer: predictors and oncological safety of tumor tissue manipulation.

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.