Comparison of Outcomes in Bowel Resections by Gynecologic Oncologists Versus General Surgeons During Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators Collaboration Study (GORILLA-3006).

BACKGROUND: This report describes the oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had bowel surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and compares the outcomes with those for bowel surgery performed by general surgeons (GSs) during maximal cytoreductive surgery. METHODS: Patients from six academic institutions who had FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer and underwent any bowel surgeries during maximal cytoreductive surgery were eligible for the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether bowel surgery was performed by a GO or a GS. In both groups, the GOs were mainly involved in extra bowel debulking procedures. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The 761 patients in this study included 113 patients who underwent bowel surgery by a GO and 648 who had bowel surgery by a GS. No discernible differences were observed in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, FIGO stage, histologic type, timing of cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval debulking surgery), or complications between the two groups. The GO group exhibited a shorter operation time than the GS group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no survival differences between the two groups. In the Cox analysis, non-serous cell types and gross residual diseases were associated with adverse effects on overall survival. However, performance of bowel surgery by a GO did not have an impact on survival. CONCLUSION: Performance of bowel surgery by a GO during maximal cytoreductive surgery is both feasible and safe. These results should be reflected in the training system for GOs regarding bowel surgery, and further research is needed to confirm that GOs can play a more leading role in performing extra-uterine procedures.

Comparison of survival and complications between minimally invasive and open staging surgeries in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare survival and complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery and evaluate related risk factors in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: Clinicopathologic characteristics; survival outcomes; complications; and prognostic factors associated with progression-free survival and overall survival were compared among patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary staging surgery using laparoscopic, robotic, or open abdominal surgery (2004-2017). RESULTS: In total, 91 patients were included: 41 and 50 underwent minimally invasive surgery and open surgery, respectively. The minimally invasive surgery and open surgery groups showed similar progression-free survival (5-year progression-free survival rate, 58.7 % vs. 58.5 %; P = .925) and overall survival (5-year overall survival rate, 73.6 % vs. 80.3 %; P = .834). Intraoperative (7.2 % vs. 6.0 %; P = .111) and postoperative surgical complications (14.6 % vs. 26.0 %; P = .165) were similar between the groups. However, blood loss was lower (mean, 305.1 vs. 561.2 ml, P < .001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean, 8.2 vs. 15.4 days, P < .001) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Using multivariate analysis, lymphovascular space invasion was identified as poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.054; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.521-6.132; P = .002) and overall survival (adjusted HR, 3.918; 95 % CI, 1.455-10.551; P = .007), whereas age ≥ 60 years was poor prognostic factor for only overall survival (adjusted HR, 5.0953; 95 % CI, 1.660-15.378; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical outcomes did not differ between the minimally invasive and open surgery group in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Lymphovascular space invasion was a significant survival factor in this context.

Effect and Safety of Diluted Vasopressin Injection for Bleeding Control During Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy in Reproductive Women With Uterine Fibroids: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial (VALENTINE Trial).

BACKGROUND/AIM: Vasopressin injected during myomectomy is known to effectively reduce bleeding but is sometimes associated with intraoperative vasoconstriction and hypertension due to systemic absorption. Although there is a growing preference for the use of diluted vasopressin, evidence of its effect and safety is still lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled pilot trial to evaluate the effect and safety of vasopressin diluted in a constant volume during robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM), where a total of 39 women with uterine fibroids were randomly assigned into the following three groups (group 1, 0.2 IU/ml; group 2, 0.1 IU/ml; group 3, 0.05 IU/ml with a total of 100 ml of normal saline). The primary endpoint was to compare estimated blood loss (EBL), and the secondary endpoints were to compare postoperative value and drop ratio of hemoglobin, operation time, transfusion, hospitalization, and complications among the three groups. RESULTS: There were no differences in the number and largest size of uterine fibroids, total weight of uterine fibroids, console time, and volumes of intravenous fluid administered during RALM among the three groups, whereas combined operation was performed more commonly in group 2 than in groups 1 and 3 (53.9% vs. 0 to 7.7%; p=0.01). The primary and secondary endpoints were also not different among the three groups. However, two patients in group 1 (15.4%) showed vasopressin-related hypertension. CONCLUSION: Vasopressin diluted in a volume of 100 ml showed an effective hemostatic effect and safety during RALM (Trial No. NCT04874246 in ClinicalTrial.gov).