Beatriz Navarro Santana

Treatment of recurrent serous borderline tumors with noninvasive peritoneal implants

Response to: Correspondence on “Complications of HIPEC for ovarian cancer surgery: evaluation over two time periods” by Lavoue et al

Primary versus interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with rare epithelial or non-epithelial ovarian cancer

The standard treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer is primary cytoreductive surgery, with the goal of achieving no residual disease. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery can be viable treatment options for patients with extensive disease that precludes complete tumor removal during initial surgery, or when significant comorbidities increase the surgical risk without adversely impacting overall survival rates. However, published studies mostly included patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer, with an underrepresentation of non-high-grade serous epithelial and non-epithelial cancers. This review aimed to provide an overview of the available data on the outcomes of primary cytoreductive surgery versus interval cytoreduction in patients with rare ovarian cancer histotypes. Published literature on primary versus interval cytoreductive surgery in non-high-grade serous ovarian cancers from 2004 to 2024 was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar and reported for each histological subtype. The outcomes of patients with low-grade serous, endometrioid, clear-cell, and mucinous carcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were reviewed. Furthermore, the results following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-epithelial ovarian cancers, such as ovarian germ cell tumors, sex cord-stromal tumors, and small-cell carcinoma of the ovary, have also been reported. Most data were derived from retrospective studies, with heterogeneity in design. Several ovarian cancer histotypes, including low-grade serous and mucinous carcinomas, may be less responsive than high-grade serous carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Consequently, primary cytoreduction with maximal surgical effort may confer a survival advantage. Other tumors responded well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, allowing for interval fertility-sparing surgeries. Additional evidence is required because no prospective studies are currently available. Given the low incidence of these diseases, randomized controlled trials may not be feasible. However, national or international registries could play a pivotal role in determining the optimal approach for managing patients with these rare histotypes.

Complications of HIPEC for ovarian cancer surgery: evaluation over two time periods

Cytoreductive surgery in conjunction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is being explored in the upfront, interval, and recurrent setting in patients with ovarian cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the rate of complications associated with HIPEC in epithelial ovarian cancer surgery over two time periods. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328928). A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Ovid/Medline, Ovid/Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2004 to April 2022. We included studies reporting on patients with advanced primary or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. We evaluated two different time periods: 2004-2013 and 2014-2022. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to produce an overall summary. Subgroup analyses were planned according to recruited period for each specific complication type. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I A total of 4928 patients were included from 69 studies for this systematic review; 19 published from 2004-2013, and 50 published from 2014-2022. No significant differences were found between the two time periods in terms of blood transfusions (33% vs 51%; p=0.46; I Our review showed that overall complications have not changed over time for patients undergoing HIPEC in the setting of primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. There was no decrease in the rates of ICU admissions, reoperations, or deaths.

Regarding “Surgical Approach and Use of Uterine Manipulator Are Not Associated with LVSI in Surgery for Early-stage Cervical Cancer: Points to be displayed”

Outcomes of low-risk endometrial cancer with isolated tumor cells in the sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, observational study (ENDO-ITC study)

It is unclear whether isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) adversely affect prognosis, especially in low-risk endometrial cancer. In a retrospective study, we showed a worse recurrence-free survival for low-risk endometrial cancer with ITCs than the node-negative group. Our aim is to evaluate whether the likelihood of disease recurrence differs between a prospective cohort of patients with low-risk endometrial cancer with ITCs and an historical cohort with negative SLNs. We hypothesize that patients with low-risk endometrial cancer and ITCs will have a worse recurrence-free survival than patients who are node-negative. This is a prospective, multi-center, single-arm observational study. Consecutive patients with low-risk endometrial cancer with ITCs in the SLNs will be accrued. Observation only will be suggested after surgery. We will include patients with endometrial cancer undergoing pelvic SLN biopsy and ultra-staging with the following characteristics: endometrioid histology, grades 1 to 2, <50% myometrial invasion, without substantial/extensive lympho-vascular space invasion. ITCs in SLNs are defined as tumor cell aggregates ≤0.2 mm or <200 cells. The primary end point is recurrence-free survival, measured from the date of surgery to the date of recurrence, death, or last disease evaluation. With a sample size of 132 women with low-risk endometrial cancer and ITCs, a 1-sided log-rank test achieves 85% power at a 0.05 significance level to detect an HR of 2.1. The expected number of events during the study is 17.3. The study duration will be 60 months: 24 for enrollment and 36 for follow-up. The results are expected in 2029. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06689956.