Distribution and Volume of Extrauterine Disease in Uterine Serous Carcinoma: Is Minimally Invasive Surgery a Suitable Approach?

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina A. Ayeni ◽  
Mariam M. AlHilli ◽  
Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez ◽  
Andrea Mariani ◽  
Michaela E. McGree ◽  
...  

ObjectiveMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the preferred technique for managing endometrial cancer. Given that uterine serous carcinoma (USC) has a predilection for multiquadrant peritoneal dissemination, our objective was to estimate the potential risk for overlooking occult peritoneal spread with the use of MIS.MethodsA single-institution, retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent primary surgical staging for endometrial cancer via laparotomy between 1999 and 2008. Patterns of metastases were analyzed to estimate the potential risk for understaging via MIS.ResultsA total of 202 USC cases met inclusion criteria. Pelvic and para-aortic nodes were positive in 59 (36%) of 166 and 43 (31%) of 138, respectively. Stage IVb disease was diagnosed in 77 (38%) of 202 patients. The majority (86%, 66/77) harbored bulky and/or multisite macroscopic abdominal implants. Isolated microscopic peritoneal disease was present in 5 of 77 cases (6% of stage IV, 2% of the entire cohort) but, in all cases, was limited to the omentum; 6 of 77 cases (8% of stage IV, 3% of the cohort) harbored a single implant in the context of a negative omentum but, in all cases, were macroscopic (locations included the ileum, the diaphragm, and the base of the mesentery).ConclusionsFor providers who aim to remove all visible disease in patients with USC, the rate of extrauterine disease escaping detection using MIS is low (<3%) provided an omentectomy is performed together with staging.

2020 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 70-71
Author(s):  
D. Basaran ◽  
D. Sassine ◽  
B. Brandt ◽  
J.J. Mueller ◽  
V. Broach ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda N. Fader ◽  
R. Matsuno Weise ◽  
Abdulrahman K. Sinno ◽  
Edward J. Tanner ◽  
Bijan J. Borah ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1121-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley B. Conrad ◽  
Pedro T. Ramirez ◽  
William Burke ◽  
R. Wendel Naumann ◽  
Kari L. Ring ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo evaluate the current patterns of use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, including traditional, robotic-assisted, and single-port laparoscopy, by Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members and to compare the results to those of our 2004 and 2007 surveys.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology members were surveyed through an online or mailed-paper survey. Data were analyzed and compared with results of our prior surveys.ResultsFour hundred six (32%) of 1279 SGO members responded. Eighty-three percent of respondents (n = 337) performed traditional laparoscopic surgery (compared with 84% in 2004 and 91% in 2007). Ninety-seven percent of respondents performed robotic surgery (compared with 27% in 2007). When respondents were asked to indicate procedures that they performed with the robot but not with traditional laparoscopy, 75% indicated radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Overall, 70% of respondents indicated that hysterectomy and staging for uterine cancer was the procedure they most commonly performed with a minimally invasive approach. Only 17% of respondents who performed minimally invasive surgery performed single-port laparoscopy, and only 5% of respondents indicated that single-port laparoscopy has an important or very important role in the field.ConclusionsSince our prior surveys, we found a significant increase in the overall use and indications for robotic surgery. Radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer and total hysterectomy and staging for endometrial cancer were procedures found to be significantly more appropriate for the robotic platform in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. The indications for laparoscopy have expanded beyond endometrial cancer staging to include surgical management of early-stage cervical and ovarian cancers, but the use of single-port laparoscopy remains limited.


2021 ◽  
pp. 180-181
Author(s):  
Ingolf Juhasz-Boess ◽  
Patrick Molnar

<b>Background:</b> There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. <b>Study design:</b> We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence. <b>Results:</b> A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P&#x3c;.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–4.20; P = .006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.97; P = .027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.83; P = .026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P = .63). <b>Conclusion:</b> In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.


2020 ◽  
Vol 156 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-168
Author(s):  
Adrian Kohut ◽  
Mary Cathryn Earnhardt ◽  
Nicholas G. Cuccolo ◽  
Chi-Son Kim ◽  
Mihae Song ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 185-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Koskas ◽  
Marta Jozwiak ◽  
Marie Fournier ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Hans Trum ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document