The complex relationship between infertility and female genital tract cancer: A review.

INTRODUCTION: The link between female infertility and gynecological cancer has always been a debated and challenging topic. Although cervical cancer has the worst impact on female fertility, as it is usually diagnosed in patients of reproductive age, endometrial and ovarian cancer are also diagnosed and treated often in relatively younger patients in which fertility preservation is a relevant issue. The aim of this review is to highlight the correlation between therapy for female infertility and the developing cancer's risk and to describe the fertility sparing treatments in gynecological oncology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature through the main scientific search engines (PubMed and Google Scholar) was performed. We selected the most relevant articles based on the largest case series and the latest updates. All selected documents have been listed in the references. RESULTS: Fifty-six relevant articles published between 1996 and 2019 were identified.Results from the available evidence report no significant increased risk of endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer in patients having infertility treatments.In young patients diagnosed with gynecological cancer, preservation of fertility is a personalized choice depending on several factors (type, stage, age and desire to conceive, safety of the treatment, and feasibility of fertility sparing surgery). For ovarian cancer FIGO stage IA G1, IA G2 (grade), and IC G1; for endometrial adenocarcinoma grade 1 with no lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) or myometrial invasion and for early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage 2018: IA1-IB1), fertility sparing treatment is possible. The role of fertility sparing treatment with the increase of personalization of therapies therapy is always a theme of discussion and research. CONCLUSION: At present data regarding the risk of gynecological cancers after infertility treatments are reassuring. Careful evaluation of female fertility-sparing options in young women interested by ovarian, endometrial, or cervical tumors should be carried out involving a multidisciplinary team and ensuring safety and efficacy.

Survival in clinical stage I endometrial cancer with single vs. multiple positive pelvic nodes: results of a multi-institutional Italian study / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To investigate survival outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients with single vs. multiple positive pelvic lymph nodes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of all consecutive patients with histologically proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1 EEC who underwent primary surgical treatment between 2004 and 2014 at seven Italian gynecologic oncology referral centers. Patients with pre- or intra-operative evidence of extra-uterine disease (including the presence of bulky nodes) and patients with stage IIIC2 disease were excluded, in order to obtain a homogeneous population. RESULTS: Overall 140 patients met the inclusion criteria. The presence of >1 metastatic pelvic node was significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence and mortality, compared to only 1 metastatic node, at both univariate (recurrence: hazard ratio [HR]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2–3.99; p=0.01; mortality: HR=2.8; 95% CI=1.24–6.29; p=0.01) and multivariable analysis (recurrence: HR=1.91; 95% CI=1.02–3.56; p=0.04; mortality: HR=2.62; 95% CI=1.13–6.05; p=0.02) and it was the only independent predictor of prognosis in this subset of patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were significantly longer in patients with only 1 metastatic node compared to those with more than 1 metastatic node (p=0.008 and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: The presence of multiple metastatic nodes in stage IIIC1 EEC represents an independent predictor of worse survival, compared to only one positive node. Our data suggest that EEC patients may be categorized according to the number of positive nodes.

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study / 부인종양

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.