Manolis Nikolopoulos

Comparing oncological outcomes of robotic versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer

Robotic surgery has been incorporated in the treatment of endometrial cancer, with evidence suggesting that minimal access surgery offers advantages over laparotomy including less blood loss, lower rate of perioperative complications, and accelerated postoperative recovery. The laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) study has recently demonstrated inferior survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with minimal access surgery including robotic surgery. It is, therefore, imperative that further evaluation of the latter in endometrial cancer is performed. A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed. We compared two different types of surgery performed for the treatment of FIGO stage 1 to 3 endometrial cancer; open surgery performed in the years 2013-2015 vs robotic surgery performed in 2017-2019, after the implementation of the robotic program in our institution. Main outcome measures were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, with secondary outcomes including surgical morbidity and postoperative recovery. We compared 123 patients who had open surgery with 104 patients who underwent robotic surgery. One case from the second group was converted to open surgery due to the inability to complete it robotically. After a median follow-up of 68 months, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups. Length of stay after an operation was significantly different with mean hospital stay of 1.6 days after robotic surgery and 5 days after open surgery (p = 0.001). No significant difference was identified in the rate of complications (p = 0.304). Our analysis has demonstrated that robotic surgery offers better perioperative outcomes without compromising the oncological safety.

ASO Author Reflections: En Bloc Resection of Sentinel Lymph Nodes with the Hysterectomy Specimen in Endometrial Cancer

En Bloc Resection of Sentinel Lymph Nodes with the Hysterectomy Specimen in Endometrial Cancer

We demonstrate the surgical technique of removing the sentinel lymph nodes with its afferent lymphatic vessels attached to the hysterectomy specimen. Stepwise demonstration of the technique with narrated video footage. Sentinel lymph node sampling has been established as an acceptable staging method in endometrial cancer cases. Emerging evidence regarding diagnosis, characterization, and treatment of endometrial cancer has introduced a new era, based on minimally invasive techniques for staging through sentinel lymph node biopsy, molecular classification, and personalized treatment algorithms that include immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. This novel surgical technique emphasizes the importance of anatomical knowledge and offers inspiration for studies with potential clinical benefit that should follow.

Cervical glandular neoplasia referrals and the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ: Correlating cytology, colposcopy findings, and clinical outcomes

AbstractObjectivesTo determine the clinical outcomes of women with possible glandular neoplasia of endocervical type on cervical cytology, and review all diagnoses of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) over a 5 year period at our institution.Study designA retrospective case‐note review was conducted of all women referred to colposcopy with possible glandular neoplasia of endocervical type on cervical cytology or diagnosed with cervical AIS after biopsy or excision, from January 2014 until December 2018 in a London district hospital.ResultsOf 55 women referred with possible glandular neoplasia of endocervical type, 47 (85.4%) had a significant pathology on histopathological analysis: AIS (n = 22); invasive cancer (n = 7); high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (n = 18). Women with a history of borderline abnormality on cervical cytology within the last 5 years were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with AIS or invasive cancer (P < .05). For the same period 49 women had histologically proven AIS. Among these 22 (44.8%) were referred as possible cervical glandular intraepithelial neoplasia. Other reasons for referral were the following indications: borderline dyskaryosis (n = 13); high‐grade dyskaryosis (n = 8); low‐grade dyskaryosis (n = 4); postcoital bleeding (n = 2).ConclusionDue to the raised risk of significant gynaecological pathology in women with possible glandular neoplasia of endocervical type on cervical cytology, excisional biopsy is essential. Colposcopic impression varies significantly and complete excision of the abnormal lesions should be achieved. AIS is a histological diagnosis and should always be considered during colposcopical and cytopathological assessment.