The role of minimally invasive surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer treatment: a narrative review.

Objectives: The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available evidence on the use of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Background: MIS is currently performed to stage and treat EOC at different stage of presentation. We will evaluate risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery for early stage EOC treatment, then potential advantages provided by staging laparoscopy in identifying patients suitable for primary cytoreductive surgery (PDS) will be discussed. Finally we will investigate the growing role of MIS in the treatment of advanced EOC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and in the treatment of EOC recurrence. Methods: An electronic database search was performed on PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar for relevant studies up to December 2022. Conclusion: LPS represents a feasible surgical procedure for the staging and treatment in early, advanced and EOC relapse in selected patients treated in high-volume oncological centers by surgeons with adequate experience in advanced surgical procedures. Despite the increasing use of MIS over the last few years, randomized clinical trials are still needed to prove its effectiveness.

Impact of 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic on ovarian cancer treatment in IRCCS-AUSL of Reggio Emilia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with the 2019 regional recommendation to centralize epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients and to assess whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the quality of care for EOC patients. METHODS: We compared data from EOC patients treated before the introduction of the 2019 regional recommendation (2018-2019) with data obtained from EOC patients treated after the regional recommendation was adopted during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Data were retrieved from the Optimal Ovarian Cancer Pathway records. R software version 4.1.2 (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: 251 EOC patients were centralized. The number of EOC patients centralized increased from 2% to 49% despite the COVID-19 pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. There was an improvement in the percentage of Stage III patients without gross residual disease following both primary and interval debulking surgery. The percentage of EOC cases discussed by the multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) increased from 66% to 89% of cases. CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, centralization has increased and the quality of care has been preserved thanks to the MTB.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

An Italian National Survey on Ovarian Cancer Treatment at first diagnosis. There's None so Deaf as those who will not Hear.

Objective: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecological malignancy, crucial prognostic factors are no gross residual disease and centralization of cases. To evaluate the centralization of EOC patients, we report the results of a survey that shows the daily management of EOC patients in Italy. Methods: A 49-items electronic unblinded survey assessing demographics, practice characteristics, current opinions and approach to managing advanced EOC at first diagnosis was sent both to general gynecologists (GG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO). Differences in frequency distribution of answers between gynecologists with different expertise were evaluated using Fisher exact test. Multivariable analyses were performed applying generalized linear models. Results: 84/192 (44%) GG and 108/192 (56%) GO from all Italian regions answered to our survey. GOs declared to perform fertility sparing surgery in early EOC more frequently than GG (p=0.002). GOs can perform a frozen section and have both a gynecopathologist and a dedicated general surgeon. 89% of GOs consider as "optimal debulking" no gross residual disease and 81% achieve this at upfront cytoreduction in more than 40% of patients. Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy decreases in higher volume centers (p<0.001) while it is lower in the group of GOs than in the GGs group (p<0.001). Conclusions: EOC patients are still treated by GGs. GOs perform more upfront surgery and achieve optimal debulking in a greater percentage of patients than GGs. In Italy an adequate centralization of cases has not yet been achieved, and this may have detrimental effects on the quality of treatment.

Impact of a Province-wide Endometrial Cancer Guideline on Daily Practice.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Most women are managed by a general gynaecologist rather than being centralized in an oncogynaecology unit, resulting in different clinical management. In 2006, a hub & spoke model was introduced in the Provincial Healthcare System of Reggio Emilia, and shared guidelines were written. We aimed to verify the adherence to guidelines and the consequent improvements in quality care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent a hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in the Reggio Emilia Province hospitals from 2000 to 2016 were included in the study. Clinical and pathological data were carefully recorded for each patient included. RESULTS: This study included 132 and 277 patients in the periods before and after the implementation of the guideline, respectively. In the post-guideline period, the use of hysteroscopy, magnetic resonance, laparoscopy and adjuvant treatment significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Common shared guidelines and a clinical audit can help in improving centralization, resulting in an increased quality of care.

Accuracy of preoperative endometrial biopsy and intraoperative frozen section in predicting the final pathological diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Histotype and grade of endometrial cancer (EC) are prognostic factors of nodal involvement and thus of survival. Preoperative biopsy (PB) and intraoperative frozen section (FS) are usually used to guide surgical staging on which the choice of adjuvant therapy will be based successively. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement rate between PB and FS with final diagnosis (FD) in a series of surgically resected EC. MATERIALS: All patients submitted to hysterectomy for EC or atypical endometrial hyperplasia in the Reggio Emilia Province hospitals from 2007 to 2018 were included. Concordance rate differences in histotype, grading, myoinvasion, risk of recurrence between PB, FS and FD were assessed with Fisher's exact test and Mc Nemar contingency test. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were identified. For 345 patients it was possible to compare PB and FD results. FS examination was performed in 201/352 (57%) cases, while for 21/352 (6%) patients only an intraoperative macroscopic evaluation was done; in the remaining women, FS-exam was omitted. In 14/201 (7%) cases the tumor wasn't grossly identifiable and the random FS-sampling wasn't able to find the tumor site. High diagnostic concordance of tumor type between PB and FD was observed: no significant differences were registered in type 1 and type 2-endometrial cancer identification (83%, 73%, p = 0.121). Significant differences (p = 0.005) were observed comparing FS and FD results: 95% of type 1-ECs were correctly diagnosed by FS, while only 76% of type 2-ECs received a correct diagnosis on FS. PB showed a concordance with FD among tumor grading close to 55% whilst concordance achieved 71% grouping low grade (G1-G2) EC. No significant differences in FS and FD concordance rate were observed between tumor grades. Concordance for low grade was significantly higher than for high grade ECs (89% vs 50%, respectively, p value = 0.014). The concordance rate in evaluating the myoinvasion status between FS and FD was 80% (n: 199 patients), reaching 99% after combining the first 2 groups (0-49% vs ≥ 50%). Twenty-two cases underwent only intraoperative macroscopic evaluation of the myoinvasion, with an accuracy of 91%: only in 1 case the invasion of the cervical stroma was not detected (Stage II), and 1 case the patient was overstaged as Ib. Discrepancies were observed in FS capacity to correctly predict the final ESMO risk group in stage I patients: FS resulted particularly reliable in predicting a low-risk (concordance with FD: 91%) while the accuracy sharply decreased for intermediate- and high-risk patients (62% and 40%, respectively). To investigate the usefulness of FS in EC management, we compared patients who underwent FS (FS-group) or not (no-FS-group). Especially for low risk patients, the FS significantly increased the adequacy of surgical treatment from 53% (no-FS-group) to 72% (FS-group) (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: FS remains a useful tool to tailor surgery in EC-patients, avoiding secondary surgery to complete staging particularly in patients with AH + AHBA, low and intermediate risk ECs that could benefit from adjuvant therapy.

AB0 Blood Group and Ovarian Cancer Survival.

Background: Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy because is usually diagnosed at advanced stage. New prognostic factors have been investigated but these biomarkers do not have a strong direct relationship with survival. Several studies investigated the association between AB0 blood group with ovarian cancer but with conflicting results. We investigated the association between AB0 blood group and epithelial ovarian cancer patients consecutively surgically treated at our department from 2004 to 2015. Methods: Clinical charts of ovarian cancer patients treated and followed from 2004 to 2015 were checked for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical and pathological data were recorded in an electronic separate, anonymous, password-protected database. All relevant data were extrapolated and used for final analysis. Results: A population of 265 ovarian cancer patients was analyzed in this study. 121 (45.6%) patients presented blood type 0, 112 (42.3%) had blood type A, 23 (8.7%) B and 9 (3.4%) AB. A significantly lower percentage of death (8.7%) in patients with blood type B in comparison with patients presenting different genotypes (group 0: 34.7%, group A: 32.1%, group AB: 22.2%) was found. In invasive serous ovarian cancer patients the analysis showed a 5 fold significant reduction of the risk of death in patients with B genotype. However, postoperative residual tumor resulted the most important prognostic factor for overall survival. Conclusions: AB0 blood group might be a preoperative prognostic factor in epithelial ovarian cancer patients. According to the literature, postoperative residual disease remain the most important prognostic factor also in our study.

Conversion in endometrial cancer patients scheduled for laparoscopic staging: a large multicenter analysis: conversions and endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with endometrial cancer converted to laparotomy are totally lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer scheduled for laparoscopic staging but converted to laparotomy. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for staging endometrial cancer in seven Italian centers were reviewed. Patients' characteristics and surgical and oncological data were noted and analyzed according to surgery, i.e. laparotomy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy. RESULTS: Seventy-one out of 512 (13.9 %) patients scheduled to laparoscopy were converted to laparotomy for reasons related to anesthesiology [38/71 (53.5 %)] or surgery [33/71 (46.5 %)]. The conversion rate varied among stages [41/460 (8.9 %), 13/27 (48.1 %), 17/25 (68.0 %) in patients with stage I, II, and endometrial cancers, respectively]. Significant (P < 0.05) differences among groups were detected in patients' age, body mass index and previous pelvic surgery, and in the distribution of stages and histotype of endometrial cancers. The Kaplan-Meier procedure showed that the cumulative probability of first recurrence (P = 0.089, 0.590 and 0.084 for stage I, II and III, respectively) and of death (P = 0.108, 0.567 and 0.372 for stage I, II and III, respectively) categorized by stages did not attain statistical significance by log-rank testing after correction for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical and oncological outcomes of converted patients are no different from those of patients staged successfully with laparoscopy or with laparotomy. The conversion to laparotomy should be not considered per se a complication.

Laparoscopic versus abdominal approach to endometrial cancer: a 10-year retrospective multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to give a reality-based picture of the use of laparoscopic surgery for staging endometrial cancer patients out of the experimental setting. METHODS: Consecutive data of patients with endometrial cancer who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal surgical staging in 6 Italian centers were recorded. Baseline patients and tumors characteristics, surgery performed, and safety data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1012 subjects (403 and 609 treated by laparoscopy and laparotomy, respectively) who received surgical stadiation for endometrial cancer were included in the final analysis. The laparoscopic approach to endometrial cancer was more commonly performed in younger and nonobese patients who had received less previous surgeries, whereas the abdominal approach was preferred for the advanced stages and rare histotypes. Irrespectively to stage, the operative time was higher for the laparoscopy than laparotomy, whereas blood loss and postoperative complications were lower in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group. No difference between surgical approaches was observed in complication rates in stage I endometrial cancers, whereas they were worst in higher stages. The site, but not the incidence, of recurrences differed only for advanced stage endometrial cancers. No differences in overall, disease-free, and cancer-related survival rates were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical practice, heterogeneous criteria are adopted to recur to laparoscopy for staging endometrial cancer. The safety and the feasibility of the laparoscopy are confirmed for stage I endometrial cancers, whereas they appear suboptimal for the advanced stages.

Ultra-conservative fertility-sparing strategy for bilateral borderline ovarian tumours: an 11-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: This is a prospective long-term extension study of a randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the risk-benefit ratio of an ultra-conservative fertility-sparing approach in patients with bilateral borderline ovarian tumours (BOTs). METHODS: The experimental group (n = 15) was treated with an ultra-conservative surgical approach consisting of bilateral cystectomy, whereas the control group (n = 17) received a less conservative surgery consisting of oophorectomy plus controlateral cystectomy alone. All patients received a complete laparoscopic staging followed by a fertility enhancement programme. Patients who completed childbearing were treated with a non-conservative standard treatment at the first recurrence. RESULTS: After a follow-up period of 128 (9 interquartile range (IQR); 115-150 range) and 132 (7 IQR; 117-152 range) months for the experimental and control groups, respectively (P = 0.25), the time to first baby-in-arm (P < 0.02) and the relative rate (RR) of baby-in-arm (8.05 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.20-9.66; P < 0.01]) were significantly lower and higher, respectively, for the experimental compared with the control group. Although the time to first recurrence was significently (P < 0.01) shorter for the experimental group, in the regression analysis the difference did not reach the statistic significance (P = 0.14), and the RR of recurrence (1.23 [95% CI, 0.62-3.17; P = 0.41]) was not significant. Finally the number needed to treat for pregnancy was three, the number needed to harm for radical surgery was only two. CONCLUSIONS: The ultra-conservative fertility-sparing approach is more effective than the standard approach in terms of reproductive outcomes, but presents a higher oncological risk.

Randomized controlled study comparing the Gynecare Morcellex and Rotocut G1 tissue morcellators.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Gynecare Morcellex tissue morcellator (Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ) in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and myomectomy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (Evidence I). SETTING: University department of obstetrics and gynecology. PATIENTS: Seventy-four patients with symptomatic uterine myomas scheduled for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or myomectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and myomectomy followed by tissue morcellation using the Gynecare Morcellex (experimental group) or the Rotocut G1 morcellator (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient characteristics and surgical data were noted for both groups. No difference was detected between groups in any parameters assessed, whereas a significant difference (p <.05) in handling score was detected in the experimental group compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: The Gynecare Morcellex is an effective instrument with excellent safety and handling.