Vincent Balaya

How to perform sentinel node detection in high-risk endometrial cancer: one step forward

External beam radiotherapy boost versus surgical debulking followed by radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic lymph nodes in cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to assess disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related toxicity of two therapeutic strategies for treating bulky lymph nodes on imaging in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC): radiotherapy boost versus surgical debulking followed by radiotherapy. We performed a systematic review of studies published up to October 2023. We selected studies including patients with LACC treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost or lymph node debulking followed by EBRT (with or without boost). We included two comparative (included in the meta-analysis) and nine non-comparative studies. The estimated 3-year recurrence rate was 28.2% (95%CI:18.3-38.0) in the EBRT group and 39.9% (95%CI:22.1-57.6) in the surgical debulking plus EBRT group. The estimated 3-year DFS was 71.8% and 60.1%, respectively (p = 0.19). The estimated 3-year death rate was 22.2% (95%CI:11.2-33.2) in the EBRT boost group and 31.9% (95%CI:23.3-40.5) in the surgical debulking plus EBRT group. The estimated 3-year OS was 77.8% and 68.1%, respectively (p = 0.04). No difference in lymph node recurrence between the two comparative studies (p = 0.36). The meta-analysis of the two comparative studies showed no DFS difference (p = 0.13) but better OS in the radiotherapy boost group (p = 0.006). The incidence of grade≥3 toxicities (ranging 0-50%) was not different between the two approaches in the two comparative studies (p = 0.31). No DFS and toxicity difference when comparing EBRT boost with surgical debulking of enlarged lymph nodes and EBRT in patients with cervical cancer was evident. Radiotherapy boost had better OS. Further investigation is required to better understand the prognostic role of surgical lymph node debulking in light of radiotherapy developments.

Survival after sentinel lymph node biopsy for early cervical cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sentinel lymph node biopsy represents an alternative to pelvic lymphadenectomy for lymph node staging of early-stage cervical carcinoma, but prospective evidence on long-term oncological safety of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus pelvic lymphadenectomy is missing. To investigate, with this meta-analysis, the impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus pelvic lymphadenectomy on survival for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic literature review was performed. We excluded studies in which pelvic lymphadenectomy was systematically performed after every sentinel lymph node biopsy, including only articles where pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed because sentinel lymph node biopsy was not conclusive. A meta-analysis was carried out combining 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates with a random and fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was tested using the Cochran Χ The search of databases and registers found 927 items and six articles (two retrospective and four prospective). The median time of follow-up was 34.8 months (range 13-53). Overall common effect disease-free survival was 98% while random effect disease-free survival was 94%. Overall heterogeneity was 77%. A subgroup analysis was applied, dividing studies into one group including sentinel lymph node biopsy negative data only (common effect disease-free survival 91%; random effect disease-free survival 90%), and one group with a negative and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (common effect disease-free survival 98%; random effect disease-free survival 96%). In the analysis of overall survival, positive and negative sentinel lymph node biopsy cases were examined together (common and random effect overall survival 99%). Ultrastaging did not affect disease-free survival (common and random effect disease-free survival 92% in the ultrastaging group vs common effect disease-free survival 99% and random effect disease-free survival 96% in the non-ultrastaging group). Both 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate after sentinel lymph node biopsy alone are higher than 90% and do not differ from pelvic lymphadenectomy survival data. Ultrastaging did not impact survival.

Variability of treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer: How French multidisciplinary teams follow European guidelines?

Cervical cancer is a global public health concern. Despite ESGO recommendations and FIGO classification changes, management of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) remains debated in France. Our study aimed to review LACC treatment practices and assess adherence to ESGO recommendations among different practitioners. From February 2021 to August 2022, we conducted a survey among gynecologic oncology surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists practicing in France and managing LACC (FIGO stages IB3-IVA) according to the 2018 FIGO classification. We analyzed responses against the 2018 ESGO recommendations as a "gold standard." Among 115 respondents (56% radiation oncologists, 30% surgeons, 13% medical oncologists), 48.6% of gynecologic surgeons didn't perform para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) with significant radiologic pelvic involvement. PAL, when indicated by PET-CT, was more common in university hospitals (66.7% of surgeons). Surgeons in university hospitals also followed ESGO recommendations more closely. Overall, compliance with all ESGO recommendations was low: 5.7% of surgeons, 21.5% of radiation oncologists, and 60% of medical oncologists. Prophylactic para-aortic irradiation, per ESGO, was more frequent in comprehensive cancer centers (52% of radiation oncologists). Adherence to ESGO recommendations for LACC treatment appears low in France, particularly in surgery, with limited PAL in cases of lymph node negativity on PET-CT. However, these recommendations are more often followed by surgeons in university hospitals and radiation oncologists in cancer centers. Adherence to these recommendations may impact patient survival and warrants evaluation of care quality, justifying the organization of LACC management in expert centers.