The great debate: Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus laparotomic myomectomy. A meta-analysis to critically evaluate current evidence and look over the horizon.

Myomectomy is one of the most common surgical procedure in the field of gynecology. However, the role of laparoscopic myomectomy is still debated for many factors, including surgical considerations, safety and fertility concerns, long-term outcomes, and cost-related issues. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical peri- and post-operative outcomes of laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy. A systematic search for studies was performed up to June 2023 through MEDLINE, Pubmed, Embase. Studies reporting the comparison of surgical and obstetrical outcomes in laparoscopic versus laparotomic myomectomy were included for the following outcomes: time of surgery, estimated blood loss, decrease of postoperative hemoglobin, hospital stay, intra-operative complication rates, postoperative complications rates, postoperative analgesic use, postoperative pain at 24 h and pregnancy rate. The meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Review software. Fifty-six relevant articles were retrieved through the process of evidence acquisition. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria, for a total of 2,133 patients undergoing laparoscopic or laparotomic myomectomy. The estimated blood loss [standard mean differences (SMD) 0.72, IC 95 % 0.22 to 1.22], the hospital stays [SMD 3.12, IC 95 % 0.57 to 4.28], were significantly lower in laparoscopic than in open group. No statistically significant difference in intra-operative and post-operative complication rates, in pregnancy rate and others obstetrical outcomes between two surgical approaches were found. The findings of present metanalysis suggest that laparoscopic myomectomy offers multiple benefits, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative analgesic need, without a significant increase in complication rates and similar results in obstetrical outcomes when compared to abdominal myomectomy. However, the presence of few randomized studies on selected population may limit the generalizability of the findings to the entire population. Therefore, more well-designed studies or large population programdata to draw definitive conclusions are therefore warranted.

Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of recurrent cervical cancer: an update of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. High-risk locally advanced or recurrent/metastatic cervical cancers have a poor prognosis with routine treatments. The objective of this study is to analyze the data available in the literature on therapies and molecules currently in use to improve the prognosis of recurrent cervical cancer. AREAS COVERED: An extensive literature search was conducted by authors to identify relevant trials on various databases. Articles in English published until September 2023 that investigate different pharmacotherapy strategies for the treatment of recurrent cervical cancer, were included. Results of various pharmacological regimens including different combinations of chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, DNA damage repair inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates were analyzed. EXPERT OPINION: In recent years, there have been significant improvements in the outcomes of recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer. However, these improvements do not address the unmet need in terms of oncological outcomes. The introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapies showed advantages in cervical cancer patients. New therapies and combination strategies must be implemented. Centralization of care and enrollment in clinical trials are of paramount importance. Primary and secondary prevention remains the fundamental goal to reduce the burden of cervical cancer.

Early-stage cervical cancer treatment - what's new?

The gold standard of treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy, in agreement with the entire scientific community. During the last decade, growing evidence has supported the minimally invasive approach. Several studies have suggested that the minimally invasive approach could improve surgical and perioperative outcomes. Because of these findings, ESCO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines state that a "minimally invasive approach is favoured" in comparison with open surgery, as a grade B recommendation. Because of the lack of a grade A recommendation, this randomized Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial evaluated open vs. minimally invasive approach in the early stage. It demonstrated an increase in mortality among patients treated with minimally invasive surgery, revolutionizing current thinking on the primary surgical approach to early cervical cancer. The aim of this study is to analyse which is the best treatment for early cervical cancer and which approach is the most effective at the moment. Further studies are needed to state with certainty the appropriateness of the treatments offered to patients with early cervical cancer.

Ten-year outcomes following laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for "low-risk" early-stage cervical cancer: A propensity-score based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence suggested the detrimental effects of adopting minimally invasive surgery in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. However, long-term evidence on the role of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in "low-risk" patients exists. METHODS: This is multi-institutional retrospective study comparing minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer patients. A propensity-score matching algorithm (1:2) was used to allocate patients into the study groups. Kaplan-Meir model was used to estimate 10-year progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Charts of 224 "low-risk" patients were retrieved. Overall, 50 patients undergoing radical hysterectomy were matched with 100 patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a longer median operative time (224 (range, 100-310) vs. 184 (range, 150-240) minutes; p < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (10 (10-100) vs. 200 (100-1000) ml, p < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (3.8 (3-6) vs. 5.1 (4-12); p < 0.001). Surgical approach did not influence the risk of having intra-operative (4% vs. 1%; p = 0.257) and 90-day severe (grade 3+) postoperative complication rates (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.497). Ten-year disease-free survival was similar between groups (94% vs. 95%; p = 0.812; HR:1.195; 95%CI:0.275, 5.18). Ten-year overall survival was similar between groups (98% vs. 96%; p = 0.995; HR:0.994; 95%CI:0.182, 5.424). CONCLUSIONS: Our study appears to support emerging evidence suggesting that, for low-risk patients, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy does not result in worse 10-year outcomes compared to the open approach. However, further research is needed and open abdominal radical hysterectomy remains the standard treatment for cervical cancer patients.

Evaluating long-term outcomes of three approaches to retroperitoneal staging in endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Sentinel lymph node mapping (SNM) has gained popularity in managing apparent early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Here, we evaluated the long-term survival of three different approaches of nodal assessment. METHODS: This is a multi-institutional retrospective study evaluating long-term outcomes of EC patients having nodal assessment between 01/01/2006 and 12/31/2016. In order to reduce possible confounding factors, we applied a propensity-matched algorithm. RESULTS: Overall, 940 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in the study, of which 174 (18.5%), 187 (19.9%), and 579 (61.6%) underwent SNM, SNM followed by backup lymphadenectomy (LND) and LND alone, respectively. Applying a propensity score matching algorithm (1:1:2) we selected 500 patients, including 125 SNM, 125 SNM/backup LND, and 250 LND. Baseline characteristics of the study population were similar between groups. The prevalence of nodal disease was 14%, 16%, and 12% in patients having SNM, SNM/backup LND and LND, respectively. Overall, 19 (7.6%) patients were diagnosed with low volume nodal disease. The survival analysis comparing the three techniques did not show statistical differences in terms of disease-free (p = 0.750) and overall survival (p = 0.899). Similarly, the type of nodal assessment did not impact survival outcomes after stratification based on uterine risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted that SNM provides similar long-term oncologic outcomes than LND.