Daniel Vázquez-Vicente

An international worldwide retrospective cohort observational study comparing primary cytoreductive surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum (SUROVA trial)

Currently, a lively debate exists within the scientific community regarding the most suitable procedure for treating stages IIIB-IVB carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum. The options under most consideration are primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. To compare overall survival at 5 years in patients who underwent primary cytoreductive surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery for stage IIIB-IVB ovarian cancer STUDY HYPOTHESIS: The treatment with primary cytoreductive surgery results in superior patient survival compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. Data will be collected from patients undergoing surgery in hospitals worldwide. Two arms will be compared: primary cytoreductive surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery. Patients must have suspected or histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIIB-IVB ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers. They must have undergone primary surgery or first course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Based on all available information before the surgery (primary or interval), the patient must have been considered completely resectable. Overall survival at 5 years from the first treatment (chemotherapy in the case of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and cytoreduction in the case of primary cytoreductive surgery). An estimated total of 5000 patients will be enrolled in the study. March 2025 TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06223763.

Conservative endoscopic management of colorectal anastomotic leak in advanced ovarian cancer

SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss. The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18-82), median body mass index 25 kg/m Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach.

Ultrasound examination, MRI, or ROMA for discriminating between inconclusive adnexal masses as determined by IOTA Simple Rules: a prospective study

To determine the best second-step approach for discriminating benign from malignant adnexal masses classified as inconclusive by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis Simple Rules (IOTA-SR). Single-center prospective study comprising a consecutive series of patients diagnosed as having an adnexal mass classified as inconclusive according to IOTA-SR. All women underwent Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) analysis, MRI interpreted by a radiologist, and ultrasound examination by a gynecological sonologist. Cases were clinically managed according to the result of the ultrasound expert examination by either serial follow-up for at least 1 year or surgery. Reference standard was histology (patient was submitted to surgery if any of the tests was suspicious) or follow-up (masses with no signs of malignancy after 12 months were considered benign). Diagnostic performance of all three approaches was calculated and compared. Direct cost analysis of the test used was also performed. Eighty-two adnexal masses in 80 women (median age 47.6 years, range 16 to 73 years) were included. Seventeen patients (17 masses) were managed expectantly (none had diagnosis of ovarian cancer after at least 12 months of follow-up) and 63 patients (65 masses) underwent surgery and tumor removal (40 benign and 25 malignant tumors). Sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound, MRI, and ROMA were 96% and 93%, 100% and 81%, and 24% and 93%, respectively. The specificity of ultrasound was better than that for MRI (p=0.021), and the sensitivity of ultrasound was better than that for ROMA (p<0.001), sensitivity was better for MRI than for ROMA (p<0.001) and the specificity of ROMA was better than that for MRI (p<0.001). Ultrasound evaluation was the most effective and least costly method as compared with MRI and ROMA. In this study, ultrasound examination was the best second-step approach in inconclusive adnexal masses as determined by IOTA-SR, but the findings require confirmation in multicenter prospective trials.

PleurX indwelling pleural catheter for the treatment of recurrent pleural effusion in advanced ovarian cancer

Thoracic anatomical landmarks and uniportal VATS cardiophrenic lymph node resection in advanced ovarian cancer

Radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Europe: characteristics, outcomes and evaluation of ESGO quality indicators

Comprehensive updated information on cervical cancer surgical treatment in Europe is scarce. To evaluate baseline characteristics of women with early cervical cancer and to analyze the outcomes of the ESGO quality indicators after radical hysterectomy in the SUCCOR database. The SUCCOR database consisted of 1272 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) between January 2013 and December 2014. After exclusion criteria, the final sample included 1156 patients. This study first described the clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up variables of this population and then analyzed the outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) after radical hysterectomy. Surgical-related ESGO quality indicators were assessed and the accomplishment of the stated recommendations was verified. The mean age of the patients was 47.1 years (SD 10.8), with a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m In this European cohort, the rate of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy is higher than for most similar patients reported in the literature. The majority of centers were already following the European recommendations even 5 years prior to the ESGO quality indicator implementations.

SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer

Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse. We obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group. Mean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Multidisciplinary approach in the pelvic relapse of a previously irradiated cervical tumor

Double identification of sentinel lymph node with indocyanine green and 99m-technetium in vulvar cancer and V–Y flap for vulvar reconstruction

Intra-operative radiation therapy after a total lateral extended infralevator exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer

SUCCOR cone study: conization before radical hysterectomy

To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009). A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score. We obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively). In this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death.

Modified Tumor-free Techniques Operation to Cervical Cancer

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if laparoscopic radical hysterectomy incorporating modified tumor-free techniques (LRH-MTF) works to treat FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer as good as abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). It will also learn about the safety of LRH-MTF. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does LRH-MTF achieve a non-inferior disease-free survival rate at 4.5 years post - operation compared to ARH? What complications do patients have during and after the operation when receiving LRH-MTF? Researchers will compare LRH-MTF to ARH to see if LRH-MTF works no worse than ARH in treating FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer. Participants will: 1. Undergo either LRH-MTF or ARH as assigned by randomization. 2. Visit the hospital for follow-up according to the study schedule for various examinations including blood tests, imaging studies, and assessment of complications. 3. Complete quality-of-life questionnaires such as EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CX24, FSFI, and FSDS-R at baseline (pre-operation) and specific time points during the follow - up period (post-operation 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4.5 years).

SUROVA - Surgery in Ovarian Cancer, Comparing Primary and Interval Cytoreductive Surgery

An international worldwide retrospective cohort observational study comparing primary cytoreductive surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with carcinoma of the ovary, fallopian tubes, and peritoneum.

Prognostic Value of Conization and Negative HPV After Conization in AIS and Early Stage Cervical Cancer

In women with cervical cancer -Squamous cell carcinoma, Adeno carcinoma, Adeno-squamous carcinoma or AIS we want to examine prospectively: 1. Examine if negative HR-HPV after conization to the HR-HPV the women had before conization has a high prognostic value for no residual tumor in the final pathology. 2. To examine if conization in women with cervical tumor up to Stage I B 2 (FIGO 2018) is corelated with better prognosis.