Search

Objective: The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus on the surgical technique for sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in cervical cancer. Methods: A 26 question survey was emailed to international expert gynecological oncology surgeons. A two-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the questions were amended and a second round, along with semistructured interviews was performed. Consensus was defined using a 70% cut-off for agreement. Results: Twenty-five of 38 (65.8%) experts responded to the first and second rounds of the online survey. Agreement ≥70% was reached for 13 (50.0%) questions in the first round and for 15 (57.7%) in the final round. Consensus agreement identified 15 recommended, three optional, and five not recommended steps. Experts agreed on the following recommended procedures: use of indocyanine green as a tracer; superficial (with or without deep) injection at 3 and 9 o'clock; injection at the margins of uninvolved mucosa avoiding vaginal fornices; grasping the cervix with forceps only in part of the cervix is free of tumor; use of a minimally invasive approach for SLN biopsy in the case of simple trachelectomy/conization; identification of the ureter, obliterated umbilical artery, and external iliac vessels before SLN excision; commencing the dissection at the level of the uterine artery and continuing laterally; and completing dissection in one hemi-pelvis before proceeding to the contralateral side. Consensus was also reached in recommending against injection at 6 and 12 o'clock, and injection directly into the tumor in cases of the tumor completely replacing the cervix; against removal of nodes through port without protective maneuvers; absence of an ultrastaging protocol; and against modifying tracer concentration at the time of re-injection after mapping failure. Conclusion: Recommended, optional, and not recommended steps of SLN dissection in cervical cancer have been

Background: International guidelines recommend tailoring the radicality of hysterectomy according to the known preoperative tumor characteristics in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Objective: This study aimed to assess whether increased radicality had an effect on 5-year disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The secondary aims were 5-year overall survival and pattern of recurrence. Study Design: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective study from the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative cohort. Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1 and IIA1 who underwent open type B/C1/C2 radical hysterectomy according to Querleu-Morrow classification between January 2007 and December 2016, who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who had negative lymph nodes and free surgical margins at final histology, were included. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Patients were stratified according to pathologic tumor diameter. Propensity score match analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non–nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Results: A total of 1257 patients were included. Of note, 883 patients (70.2%) underwent nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, and 374 patients (29.8%) underwent non–nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Baseline differences between the study groups were found for tumor stage and diameter (higher use of non–nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm or with vaginal involvement; P<.0001). The use of adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non–nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 27.3% vs 28.6%, respectively (P=.63). Five-year disease-free survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non–nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 90.1% (95% confidence interval, 87.9–92.2) vs 93.8% (95% confidence in

Background: In cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis. Methods: We analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01-1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges. Results: LN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group. Conclusions: In cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of number of radical hysterectomies performed per year in each center with disease-free survival and overall survival. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients previously included in the Surveillance in Cervical Cancer collaborative studies. Individuals with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB1-IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and had negative lymph nodes at final histology were included. Patients were treated at referral centers for gynecologic oncology according to updated national and international guidelines. Optimal cutoffs for surgical volume were identified using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model, with disease-free survival as the outcome and defined as the value that minimizes the P-value of the split in groups in terms of disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was used to create statistically similar cohorts at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2,157 patients were initially included. The two most significant cutoffs for surgical volume were identified at seven and 17 surgical procedures, dividing the entire cohort into low-volume, middle-volume, and high-volume centers. After propensity score matching, 1,238 patients were analyzed - 619 (50.0%) in the high-volume group, 523 (42.2%) in the middle-volume group, and 96 (7.8%) in the low-volume group. Patients who underwent surgery in higher-volume institutions had progressively better 5-year disease-free survival than those who underwent surgery in lower-volume centers (92.3% vs 88.9% vs 83.8%, P=.029). No difference was noted in 5-year overall survival (95.9% vs 97.2% vs 95.2%, P=.70). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that FIGO stage greater than IB1, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, grade greater than 1, tumor diameter greater than 20 mm, minimally invasive surgical approach, nonsquamous cell carcinoma histology, and lower-volum

BACKGROUND: Quality of surgical care as a crucial component of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary management improves outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma, notably helping to avoid suboptimal surgical treatment. Quality indicators (QIs) enable healthcare professionals to measure their clinical management with regard to ideal standards of care. OBJECTIVE: In order to complete its set of QIs for the surgical management of gynecological cancers, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) initiated the development of QIs for the surgical treatment of endometrial carcinoma. METHODS: QIs were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. The development process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and documentation of the scientific evidence, two consensus meetings of a group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large international panel of clinicians and patient representatives. QIs were defined using a structured format comprising metrics specifications, and targets. A scoring system was then developed to ensure applicability and feasibility of a future ESGO accreditation process based on these QIs for endometrial carcinoma surgery and support any institutional or governmental quality assurance programs. RESULTS: Twenty-nine structural, process and outcome indicators were defined. QIs 1-5 are general indicators related to center case load, training, experience of the surgeon, structured multi-disciplinarity of the team and active participation in clinical research. QIs 6 and 7 are related to the adequate pre-operative investigations. QIs 8-22 are related to peri-operative standards of care. QI 23 is related to molecular markers for endometrial carcinoma diagnosis and as determinants for treatment decisions. QI 24 addresses the compliance of management of patients after primary surgical treatment with the standards of care. QIs 25-29 highlight the need

Purpose: Current guidelines for surveillance strategy in cervical cancer are rigid, recommending the same strategy for all survivors. The aim of this study was to develop a robust model allowing for individualised surveillance based on a patient's risk profile. Methods: Data of 4343 early-stage patients with cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the international SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical Cancer) consortium. The Cox proportional hazards model predicting disease-free survival (DFS) was developed and internally validated. The risk score, derived from regression coefficients of the model, stratified the cohort into significantly distinctive risk groups. On its basis, the annual recurrence risk model (ARRM) was calculated. Results: Five variables were included in the prognostic model: maximal pathologic tumour diameter; tumour histotype; grade; number of positive pelvic lymph nodes; and lymphovascular space invasion. Five risk groups significantly differing in prognosis were identified with a five-year DFS of 97.5%, 94.7%, 85.2% and 63.3% in increasing risk groups, whereas a two-year DFS in the highest risk group equalled 15.4%. Based on the ARRM, the annual recurrence risk in the lowest risk group was below 1% since the beginning of follow-up and declined below 1% at years three, four and >5 in the medium-risk groups. In the whole cohort, 26% of recurrences appeared at the first year of the follow-up, 48% by year two and 78% by year five. Conclusion: The ARRM represents a potent tool for tailoring the surveillance strategy in early-stage patients with cervical cancer based on the patient's risk status and respective annual recurrence risk. It can easily be used in routine clinical settings internationally.

Purpose: Current guidelines for surveillance strategy in cervical cancer are rigid, recommending the same strategy for all survivors. The aim of this study was to develop a robust model allowing for individualised surveillance based on a patient's risk profile. Methods: Data of 4343 early-stage patients with cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016 were obtained from the international SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical Cancer) consortium. The Cox proportional hazards model predicting disease-free survival (DFS) was developed and internally validated. The risk score, derived from regression coefficients of the model, stratified the cohort into significantly distinctive risk groups. On its basis, the annual recurrence risk model (ARRM) was calculated. Results: Five variables were included in the prognostic model: maximal pathologic tumour diameter; tumour histotype; grade; number of positive pelvic lymph nodes; and lymphovascular space invasion. Five risk groups significantly differing in prognosis were identified with a five-year DFS of 97.5%, 94.7%, 85.2% and 63.3% in increasing risk groups, whereas a two-year DFS in the highest risk group equalled 15.4%. Based on the ARRM, the annual recurrence risk in the lowest risk group was below 1% since the beginning of follow-up and declined below 1% at years three, four and >5 in the medium-risk groups. In the whole cohort, 26% of recurrences appeared at the first year of the follow-up, 48% by year two and 78% by year five. Conclusion: The ARRM represents a potent tool for tailoring the surveillance strategy in early-stage patients with cervical cancer based on the patient's risk status and respective annual recurrence risk. It can easily be used in routine clinical settings internationally.