Stefano Cianci

Sentinel node mapping in high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer: Analysis of 5-year oncologic outcomes

To assess 5-year oncologic outcomes of apparent early-stage high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic lymphadenectomy. This is a multi-institutional retrospective, propensity-matched study evaluating data of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer (according to ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines) undergoing sentinel node mapping versus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (with and without para-aortic lymphadenectomy). Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. Overall, the charts of 242 patients with high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer were retrieved. Data on 73 (30.1%) patients undergoing hysterectomy plus sentinel node mapping were analyzed. Forty-two (57.5%) and 31 (42.5%) patients were classified in the high-intermediate and high-risk groups, respectively. Unilateral sentinel node mapping was achieved in all patients. Bilateral mapping was achieved in 67 (91.7%) patients. Three (4.1%) patients had site-specific lymphadenectomy (two pelvic areas only and one pelvic plus para-aortic area), while adjunctive nodal dissection was omitted in the hemipelvis of the other three (4.1%) patients. Sentinel nodes were detected in the para-aortic area in eight (10.9%) patients. Twenty-four (32.8%) patients were diagnosed with nodal disease. A propensity-score matching was used to compare the aforementioned group of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping with a group of patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Seventy patient pairs were selected (70 having sentinel node mapping vs. 70 having lymphadenectomy). Patients undergoing sentinel node mapping experienced similar 5-year disease-free survival (HR: 1.233; 95%CI: 0.6217 to 2.444; p = 0.547, log-rank test) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 1.505; 95%CI: 0.6752 to 3.355; p = 0.256, log-rank test) than patients undergoing lymphadenectomy. Sentinel node mapping does not negatively impact 5-year outcomes of high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Characteristics and outcomes of surgically staged multiple classifier endometrial cancer

The growing adoption of molecular and genomic characterization is changing the current landscape of treatment of endometrial cancer patients. Using the surrogate molecular classification, endometrial cancer patients can be classified in four subgroups: POLE mutated (POLEmut), MMRd/MSI-H, p53 abnormal (p53abn), and no specific mutational profile (NSMP). However, some patients can harbor two or more molecular features (defined as multiple classifier). Since the rarity of this occurrence, evidence regarding multiple classifiers is still limited. Here, we described characteristics and outcomes of multiple classifiers. This is a multi-institutional retrospective study. Data of consecutive patients having 2 or more molecular features were collected. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. Charts of 72 multiple classifiers were reviewed. Median (range) follow-up was 9.8 (1.2, 37.5) months. Overall, 31 (43%) patients had POLEmut. Patients with POLEmut-MMRd/MSI-H, POLEmut-p53abn, and POLEmut-MMRd/MSI-H-p53abn were 6 (8.3%), 20 (27.8%), and 5 (6.9%), respectively. Among those 31 patients, no recurrence occurred within a median follow-up of 10.5 months (only seven (22.6%) patients had at least 2-year follow-up). The remaining 41 (56.9%) patients were diagnosed with tumors harboring both p53 and MMRd/MSI-H. Among them, four (9.8%) recurrences occurred at a median follow-up time of 8.9 months. Adjuvant therapy (other than vaginal brachytherapy) was administered in 5/31 (16%) and 25/41 (61%) patients with and without POLEmut, respectively (p < 0.001). Multiple classifiers endometrial cancer with POLEmut are characterized by good prognosis even in case of presence of MMRd/MSI-H and/or p53abn. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed.

Fertility-Sparing Treatments in Endometrial Cancer: A Comprehensive Review on Efficacy, Oncological Outcomes, and Reproductive Potential

Endometrial cancer (EC) affects 3–14% of women under 40 who wish to preserve their fertility. The standard treatment for EC is a hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy. However, for those desiring fertility preservation, oral progestogens such as medroxy-progesterone acetate (MPA) or megestrol acetate (MA) are the most common therapies in Fertility-Sparing Treatment (FST). Other treatments include gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa), levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), and metformin plus progestin. This comprehensive review evaluates the best FST options for women with reproductive potential. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched in June 2023 using specific keywords. Studies included in the review focused on patients with EC undergoing FST, with outcomes such as complete response rate (CRR), recurrence rate (RR), pregnancy rate (PR), and live birth rate. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 23,976 patients. In only-oral progestin trials, CRR ranged from 18% to 100%; RR ranged from 0% to 81.8%; Death Rate ranged from 0% to 3.6%. In studies combining oral progestin with LNG-IUS, CRR ranged from 55% to 87.5%; RR ranged from 0% to 41.7%; Death Rate was 0%. Most patients with Stage IA EC received MPA or MA. Fertility-related outcomes were reported in 15 studies. PR ranged from 4 to 44 patients in trials involving only oral progestins. When combining oral progestin with LNG-IUS, PR ranged from 1 to 46 patients. Progestin therapy, including oral MPA and MA, is considered safe and effective, with limited evidence supporting the use of LNG-IUS.

Percutaneous-assisted vs mini-laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparison of ultra-minimally invasive approaches

To assess the feasibility and the safety of the ultra-minimally invasive (U-MIS) approaches in gynecology, we compared our experience in percutaneous assisted hysterectomy (PSS-H) with a series of 3 mm mini-laparoscopy hysterectomy (m-LPS-H). 126 patients affected by benign and malignant gynecological conditions were considered eligible for minimally invasive hysterectomy: 80 patients received PSS approach and 46 m-LPS approach. For both groups, we evaluated intra and perioperative outcomes, post-operative pain and cosmetic outcomes. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two study groups. As well, no differences were reported in the clinical indications for hysterectomy, principally fibroids/adenomyosis, endometrial hyperplasia and early stage endometrial cancer. The median operative time was 88.5 (40-190) minutes for PSS-H group and 95.0 (42-231) minutes in m-LPS-H group (p = 0.131). No differences were detected in median estimated blood loss (p = 0.104) as well, in the uterine manipulator usage (p = 0.127) between the two different surgical approaches. Only 1 (2.2%) conversion to standard laparoscopy occurred in m-LPS-H group (p = 0.691). One intra-operative complication was recorded 1 (1.3%) in the PSS-H group (p = 0.367). The post-operative early complication was recorded in five cases of PSS-H group (p = 0.158), none for m-LPS-H procedures. The results in post-operative pain detection was statistically significant after 4 h in favor of m-LPS-H group (p = 0.001). After 30 days no differences in cosmetic satisfaction were detected between the two groups (p = 0.206). PSS-H and m-LPS-H are two valid U-MIS alternatives for benign gynecological conditions and low/intermediate risk endometrial cancer.