Search

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of concurrent endometrial cancer in patients pre-operatively diagnosed with atypical endometrial hyperplasia undergoing hysterectomy. Additionally, we assessed the occurrence of high to intermediate-risk and high-risk tumors according to the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP classification. The study also compared surgical outcomes and complications between patients undergoing simple hysterectomy and those undergoing hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy., Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, patients with a pre-operative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia were identified and divided into two groups: Group 1, which included patients treated with total hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and Group 2, where sentinel lymph node biopsy was incorporated into the standard surgical treatment., Results: Among 460 patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, 192 received standard surgical management (Group 1) and 268 underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (Group 2). A total of 47.2% (95% CI 42.6% to 51.7%) of patients were upgraded to endometrial cancer on final histopathological examination. High to intermediate-risk and high-risk tumors constituted 12.3% and 9.2% in Group 2 and 7.4% and 3.7% in Group 1. Lymph node metastases were identified in 7.6% of patients with concurrent endometrial cancer who underwent nodal assessment with at least unilateral mapping. Of the 12 sentinel lymph node metastases, 75.0% were micrometastases, 16.7% macrometastases, and 8.3% isolated tumor cells. No significant differences were found in estimated blood loss, operative time, and intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. The rate of patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy doubled every 2 years (OR 2.010, p<0.001), reaching 79.1% in the last 2 years., Conclusion: This study found a prevalence of concurrent endometrial cancer of 47.2%, and sentinel lymph node biopsy provided prognostic and therapeutic information in 60.8% of cases. It also allowed for the adjustment of adjuvant therapy in 12.3% of high to intermediate-risk patients without increasing operative time or complication rates., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To report on a consensus survey of experts on a recently proposed simplified nomenclature of surgical anatomy of the female pelvis for radical hysterectomy. The aim was to standardize surgical reports in clinical practice and understanding of the techniques in future surgical literature., Methods: The anatomical definitions were included in 12 original images taken at the time of cadaver dissections. Denomination of the corresponding anatomical structures was based on the nomenclature recently proposed by the same team. A three step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the legends of the images were amended to respond to the comments of the experts. Second and third rounds were performed. Consensus was defined as a yes vote to each question regarding the images provided, and 75% was defined as the cut-off for agreement. Comments justifying the no votes were taken into account to amend the set of images and legends., Results: A group of 32 international experts from all continents was convened. Consensus exceeded 90% for all five images documenting the surgical spaces. Consensus ranged between 81.3% and 96.9% for the six images documenting the ligamentous structures surrounding the cervix. Finally, consensus was lowest (75%) for the most recently defined denomination of the broad ligament (lymphovascular parauterine tissue or upper lymphatic pathway)., Conclusion: Simplified anatomic nomenclature is a robust tool to describe the surgical spaces of the female pelvis. The simplified definition of ligamentous structures reached a high level of consensus, even if the terms paracervix (instead of lateral parametrium), uterosacral ligament (replaced by rectovaginal ligament), vesicovaginal ligament, and lymphovascular parauterine tissue remain matters of debate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This prospective randomized trial aimed to assess the impact of the uterine manipulator in terms of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for early-stage endometrial cancer. Methods: In this multicentric randomized trial, enrolled patients were randomly allocated in two groups according to the no use (arm A) or the use (arm B) of the uterine manipulator. Inclusion criteria were G1-G2 early-stage endometrial cancer at preoperative evaluation. The variables collected included baseline demographic characteristics, perioperative data, final pathology report, adjuvant treatment, and follow-up. Results: In the study, 154 patients (76 in arm A and 78 in arm B) were finally included. No significant differences were recorded regarding the baseline characteristics. A statistically significant difference was found in operative time for the laparoscopic staging (p=0.005), while no differences were reported for the robotic procedures (p=0.419). The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in arm A (p=0.030). No statistically significant differences were recorded between the two study groups in terms of peritoneal cytology, LVSI (p=0.501), and pattern of LVSI (p=0.790). No differences were detected in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival (p=0.996 and p=0.480, respectively). Similarly, no differences were recorded in the number of recurrences, 6 (7.9%) in arm A and 4 (5.2%) in arm B (p=0.486). The use of the uterine manipulator had no impact on DFS both at univariable and multivariable analyses. Conclusions: The intrauterine manipulator does not affect the LVSI in early-stage endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic/robotic staging. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov , identifier (NCT: 02762214) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]