Enhanced Recovery after Surgery and Endometrial Cancers: Results from an Initial Experience Focused on Elderly Patients.

Endometrial cancer is the fifth most common cancer among French women and occurs most frequently in the over-70-year-old population. Recent years have seen a significant shift towards minimally invasive surgery and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in endometrial cancer management. However, the impact of ERAS on endometrial cancer has not been well-established. We conducted a prospective observational study in a comprehensive cancer center, comparing the outcomes between endometrial cancer patients who received care in an ERAS pathway (261) and those who did not (166) between 2006 and 2020. We performed univariate and multivariate analysis. Our primary objective was to evaluate the impact of ERAS on length of hospital stay (LOS), with the secondary objectives being the determination of the rates of early discharge, post-operative morbidity, and rehospitalization. We found that patients in the ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay, with an average of 3.18 days compared to 4.87 days for the non-ERAS group (estimated decrease -1.69, p < 0.0001). This effect was particularly pronounced among patients over 70 years old (estimated decrease -2.06, p < 0.0001). The patients in the ERAS group also had a higher chance of early discharge (47.5% vs. 14.5% in the non-ERAS group, p < 0.0001), for which there was not a significant increase in post-operative complications. Our study suggests that ERAS protocols are beneficial for the management of endometrial cancer, particularly for older patients, and could lead to the development of ambulatory pathways.

Posterior pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) can be required to achieve complete resection in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with large pelvic disease. This study aimed to analyze morbidity, complete resection rate, and survival of PPE. METHODS: Ninety patients who underwent PPE in our Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2010 and February 2021 were retrospectively identified. To analyze practice evolution, 2 periods were determined: P1 from 2010 to 2017 and P2 from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: A 82.2% complete resection rate after PPE was obtained, with rectal anastomosis in 96.7% of patients. Complication rate was at 30% (grade 3 in 9 patients), without significant difference according to periods or quality of resection. In a binary logistic regression adjusted on age and stoma, only age of 51-74 years old was associated with a lower rate of complication (odds ratio=0.223; p=0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals (OS and DFS) from initial diagnosis were 75.21 and 29.84 months, respectively. A negative impact on OS and DFS was observed in case of incomplete resection, and on DFS in case of final cytoreductive surgery (FCS: after ≥6 chemotherapy cycles). Age ≥75-years had a negative impact on DFS for new OC surgery. For patients with complete resection, OS and DFS were decreased in case of interval cytoreductive surgery and FCS in comparison with primary cytoreductive surgery. CONCLUSION: PPE is an effective surgical measure to achieve complete resection for a majority of patients. High rate of colorectal anastomosis was achieved without any mortality, with acceptable morbidity and high protective stoma rate.

Care as Usual: An Acceptable Strategy to Apply During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a French Tertiary Gynecologic Oncology Department.

We describe and analyze a "care as usual" strategy of a French Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic to manage surgical patients with gynecological cancer. We conducted a retrospective analysis evaluating the surgical activity in our gynecologic oncology department between January 21 and May 12, 2020. We compared the surgical activity and surgical and oncologic outcomes during the pre-lockdown period and the pandemic period. The main objective was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical activity. The secondary objectives were to analyze the surgical and the oncologic outcomes. We compared the surgical activity during the 8 weeks after the national lockdown (85 procedures) to the surgical activity in the 8 weeks preceding the lockdown (127 procedures). We observed a 33% decrease in activity between the two periods. The clinical and epidemiologic characteristics were similar between the two periods. There were no differences between the surgical approaches (p = 0.592), the surgical complexity (p = 0.323), the length of stay (p = 0.85), and even for the complex procedure (p = 0.96) and the perioperative (p = 0.791) and postoperative complication rates (p = 0.102). We observed a significant decrease in the time of return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT) during the lockdown period with an average of 31.9 days compared to 46.9 days in the pre-lockdown period (p = 0.003). During the COVID-19 pandemic, "care as usual" represents an acceptable strategy without impairing the oncologic outcome in a Comprehensive Cancer Center with a patient-centered clinical pathway for gynecologic oncologic surgical patients.

Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the characteristics of procedures for gynecologic cancers conducted with conventional laparoscopy (CL) or robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in the context of an enhanced recovery program (ERP). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort study conducted between 2016 (when the ERP was first implemented at the Institut Paoli-Calmettes, a comprehensive cancer center in France) and 2018. We included patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery for gynecological cancers and followed our ERP. The endpoints were the analysis of postoperative complications, the length of postoperative hospitalization (LPO), and the proportion of combined procedures depending on the approach (RAL or CL). Combined procedures were defined by the association of at least two of the following operative items: hysterectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: A total of 362 women underwent either CL (n = 187) or RAL (n = 175) for gynecologic cancers and followed our ERP. The proportion of combined procedures performed by RAL was significantly higher (85/175 [48.6%]) than that performed by CL (23/187 [12.3%]; p < 0.001). The proportions of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups (19.4% versus 17.1%; p = 0.59). Logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically insignificant trend in the association of RAL with a reduced likelihood of an LPO > 3 days after adjusting for predictors of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.573 [0.236-1.388]; p = 0.217). CONCLUSION: Experts from our cancer center preferentially choose RAL to perform gynecologic oncological procedures that present elements of complexity. More studies are needed to determine whether this strategy is efficient in managing complex procedures in the framework of an ERP.