Rüdiger Klapdor

Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy

Abstract Objective To evaluate association of preoperative cone biopsy with the probability of recurrent disease after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Methods This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with LVSI to IIA2 and squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype were included. Patients were analyzed for general characteristics and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results In total, of 480 patients with cervical cancer, 183 patients met the inclusion criteria (117 with laparoscopic and 66 with open surgery). The median tumor diameter was 25.0 mm (range 4.6–70.0 mm) with 66 (36.2%) patients having tumors smaller than 2 cm. During median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 0–166.0 months), the RFS for the laparoscopic cohort was 93.2% and 87.5% at 3 and 4.5 years, and 79.3% for the open cohort after 3 and 4.5 years, respectively. In total, 17 (9.3%) patients developed recurrent disease, 9 (7.3%) after laparoscopic, and 8 (12.1%) after open surgery. No preoperative cone biopsy (OR 9.60, 95% CI 2.14–43.09) as well as tumor diameter > 2 cm (OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.20–24.25) were significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence. In multivariate analysis, only missing preoperative cone biopsy was significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR 5.90, 95% CI 1.11–31.29) Conclusion There appears to be a subgroup of patients (preoperative cone biopsy, tumor diameter < 2 cm) with excellent survival and low risk for recurrence after radical hysterectomy which might benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.

Radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: what shall we do after the LACC trial?

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has led to one of the greatest controversies in gynecological oncology in recent years. After laparoscopic radical hysterectomy became increasingly widespread worldwide, it lost its importance dramatically when the data from the LACC study were published. In contrast to previous assumptions, there was a significantly reduced survival after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to the open abdominal procedure. Multiple studies were subsequently published. Some confirm these results some do not. Some consider further studies to be unethical, others point to their own non-randomized results and call for a new LACC study. This article gives an overview of the current data situation and the possible criticisms of the individual studies. And, finally, calls for new RCT's under defined criteria.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in vulvar cancer: status, level of knowledge, and counseling in outpatient setting

Abstract Purpose Evaluating the counseling of patients with vulvar cancer in outpatient setting regarding the application of sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND), the selection of hospitals for further treatment, and level of knowledge. Methods A questionnaire containing 29 questions about SLND in vulvar cancer was sent to gynecologists in Lower Saxony. The questionnaire contained multiple choice questions and open questions. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. Results The median age of the 86 respondents was 54 (26–66) years. Most participants (83.1%) reported to only treat one to five patients with vulvar cancer per year. Interestingly, 70.5% of the gynecologists send their patients to university hospitals and 64.1% to hospitals offering maximum care, respectively. Of all, 32.7% replied that SLND was performed rarely or never in their patients. The gynecologists answered that only 36.7% of the patients are well informed about advantages and possible disadvantages of SLND. Most (84%) felt responsible to counsel patients on treatment decisions independently from or additionally to the hospital. Of all, 72% replied that they are not completely sure about the exact recurrence rates after SLND. Of notice, 66% believe that SLND for vulvar cancer is safe if applied in specialized centers and 92% stated that focusing treatment on specialized centers is required for best results. Conclusion SLND for vulvar cancer is widely accepted and regularly recommended among gynecologists. Outpatient doctors report to send most patients to specialized centers. However, it appears that patients remain uninformed after counseling in the clinics and that there is a lack of detailed knowledge about risks and complication rates of groin treatment in the outpatient setting.