Alessia Aloisi

Trends and current aspects of reconstructive surgery for gynecological cancers

Gynecologic cancers can lead to gynecologic tract destruction with extension into both the gastrointestinal and urinary tracts. Recurrent disease can also affect the surrounding bony pelvis and pelvic musculature. As opposed to advanced ovarian cancer, where cytoreduction is the goal, in these scenarios, an oncologic approach to achieve negative margins is critical for benefit. Surgeries aimed at achieving a R0 resection in gynecologic oncology can have a significant impact on pelvic anatomy, and require reconstruction. Overall, it appears that these types of radical surgery are less frequently performed; however, when required, multidisciplinary teams at high-volume centers can potentially improve short-term morbidity. There are few data to examine the long-term, quality-of-life outcomes after reconstruction following oncologic resection in advanced and recurrent gynecologic cancers. In this review we outline considerations and approaches for reconstruction after surgery for gynecologic cancers. We also discuss areas of innovation, including minimally invasive surgery and the use of 3D surgical anatomy models for improved surgical planning.In the era of 'less is more', pelvic exenteration in gynecologic oncology is still indicated when there are no other curative-intent alternatives in persistent or recurrent gynecological malignancies confined to the pelvis or with otherwise unmanageable symptoms from fistula or radiation necrosis. Pelvic exenteration is one of the most destructive procedures performed on an elective basis, which inevitably carries a significant psychologic, sexual, physical, and emotional burden for the patient and caregivers. Such complex ultraradical surgery, which requires removal of the vagina, vulva, urinary tract, and/or gastrointestinal tract, subsequently needs creative and complex reconstructive procedures. The additional removal of sidewall or perineal structures, like pelvic floor muscles/vulva, or portions of the musculoskeletal pelvis, and the inclusion of intra-operative radiation further complicates reconstruction. This review paper will focus on the reconstruction aspects following pelvic exenteration, including options for urinary tract restoration, reconstruction of the vulva and vagina, as well as how to fill large empty spaces in the pelvis. While the predominant gastrointestinal outcome after exenteration in gynecologic oncology is an end colostomy, we also present some novel new options for gastrointestinal tract reconstruction at the end.

Clinicopathological characteristics of multiple-classifier endometrial cancers: a cohort study and systematic review

Endometrial cancers with more than one molecular feature- To describe our cohort of multiple classifiers and to report the results of a review on their incidence and the techniques used to identify them. Multiple classifiers identified at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, between April 2019 and Decmber 2022, were included. Clinicopathological, molecular characteristics, and oncologic outcomes were summarized and compared between single and multiple classifiers sharing common features. Studies on molecular classification of endometrial cancer were searched in the PubMed Database to collect data on the incidence of multiple classifiers and the techniques used for classification. Among 422 patients, 48 (11.4%) were multiple classifiers: 15 (3.6%) POLEmut-p53abn, 2 (0.5%) POLEmut-MMRd, 28 (6.6%) MMRd-p53abn, and 3 (0.7%) POLEmut-MMRd-p53abn. MMRd-p53abn and MMRd differed in histotype (non-endometrioid: 14.8% vs 2.0%, p=0.006), grade (high-grade: 55.6% vs 22.2%, p=0.001), and MMR proteins expression, whereas they differed from p53abn in histotype (non-endometrioid: 14.8% vs 50.0%, p=0.006). POLEmut-p53abn and POLEmut differed only in grade (high-grade: 66.7% vs 22.7%, p=0.008), while they differed from p53abn in age (56.1 vs 66.7 years, p=0.003), stage (advanced: 6.7% vs 53.4%, p=0.001), and histotype (non-endometrioid: 6.7% vs 50.0%, p=0.002). Two (7.1%) patients with MMRd-p53abn, 4 (4.0%) with MMRd, and 25 (34.3%) with p53abn had a recurrence. No recurrences were observed in POLEmut-p53abn and POLEmut. The characteristics of POLEmut-p53abn resembled those of POLEmut, whereas MMRd-p53abn appeared to be intermediate between MMRd and p53abn. The high proportion of multiple classifiers may be related to the methods used for molecular classification, which included both p53 immunohistochemistry and

ASO Author Reflections: Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Oncologic Outcomes