Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancy: A single-centre case series and review of the literature

Pelvic exenteration: a retrospective study in a tertiary referral cancer center in the UK

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an extensive surgery that is indicated in cases of recurrent advanced gynecological cancer with curative and sometimes palliative intent. The procedure is associated with both high morbidity and mortality and as such is considered a highly specialist procedure. The aim of the study was to analyze surgical outcomes in women who underwent PE for advanced gynecological malignancy in a tertiary cancer referral center over 11 years.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective single-center study. There were 17 patients included who underwent PE in Hull Royal Infirmary Hospital (Hull, UK) between 2010 and 2021. The main outcome measures were the perioperative complications, overall survival (OS), and recurrence free survival (RFS). Cumulative survival rates were reported at 1, 3 and 5 years. Univariate Cox regression analysis was undertaken to analyze factors that are prognostic for OS and RFS. Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were computed from the results of the Cox regression analyses. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to visually display estimates of OS and RFS over the follow-up period.

RESULTS

The median age at the time of surgery was 63.0 (IQR: 48.0-71.0). All patients received surgery with curative intent and complete tumor resection (R0) was achieved in 94.1% of cases. An overall 5-year survival was achieved in 63.7% of patients. Mean overall survival (OS) was 8.4 years (95% CI: 7.78-9.02). The RFS was 5.0 years (95% CI: 4.13-5.87). Both OS and RFS were significantly negatively affected by the hospital stay (P=0.020 and P=0.035, respectively), but not by the type of surgery (P=0.263 and P=0.826, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study demonstrated stable and comparable outcomes in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration.

Perioperative outcomes in gynecologic pelvic exenteration before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program

OBJECTIVES

To compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before and after implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.

METHODS

We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies before (1/1/2006-12/30/2014) and after (1/1/2015-6/30/2023) ERAS implementation. We described ERAS compliance rates. We compared outcomes up to 60 days post-exenteration. Complication grades were defined by the Clavien-Dindo system.

RESULTS

Overall, 105 women underwent pelvic exenteration; 74 (70.4%) in the pre-ERAS and 31 (29.5%) in the ERAS cohorts. There were no differences between cohorts in age, body mass index, race, primary disease site, type of exenteration, urinary diversion, or vaginal reconstruction. All patients had complications, with at least one grade II+ complication in 94.6% of pre-ERAS and 90.3% of ERAS patients. The ERAS cohort had more grade I-II gastrointestinal (61.3% vs 21.6%, p < 0.001) and hematologic (61.3% vs 36.5%, p = 0.030) and grade III-IV renal (29.0% vs 12.2%, p = 0.048) and wound (45.2% vs 18.9%, p = 0.008) complications compared to the pre-ERAS cohort. ERAS patients had a higher rate of ileus (38.7% vs 10.8%, p = 0.002), urinary leak (22.6% vs 5.4%, p = 0.014), pelvic abscess (35.5% vs 10.8%, p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding requiring intervention (61.3% vs 28.4%, p = 0.002), and readmission (71.4% vs 46.5%, p = 0.025). Median ERAS compliance was 60%.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic exenteration remains a morbid procedure, and complications were more common in ERAS compared to pre-ERAS cohorts. ERAS protocols should be optimized and tailored to the complexity of pelvic exenteration compared to standard gynecologic oncology ERAS pathways.

Robotic versus open and laparoscopic pelvic exenterations for pelvic cancer: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is the last resort for achieving a complete cure for pelvic cancer; however, it is burdensome for patients. Minimally invasive surgeries, including robot-assisted surgery, have been widely used to treat malignant tumors and have also recently been used in PE. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted PE (RPE) by comparing the outcomes of open PE (OPE) with those of conventional laparoscopic PE (LPE) for treating pelvic tumors.

METHODS

Following the ethics committee approval, a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration between January 2012 and October 2022 was conducted. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were collected. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed to minimize group selection bias.

RESULTS

In total, 261 patients met the study criteria, of whom 61 underwent RPE, 90 underwent OPE, and 110 underwent LPE. After propensity score matching, 50 pairs were created for RPE and OPE and 59 for RPE and LPE. RPE was associated with significantly less blood loss (RPE vs. OPE: 408 mL vs. 2385 ml, p < 0.001), lower transfusion rate (RPE vs. OPE: 32% vs. 82%, p < 0.001), and lower rate of complications over Clavien-Dindo grade II (RPE vs. OPE: 48% vs. 74%, p = 0.013; RPE vs. LPE: 48% vs. 76%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study suggests that RPE reduces blood loss and transfusion compared with OPE and has a lower rate of complications compared with OPE and LPE in patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic tumors.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on mortality rate following total pelvic exenteration in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Total pelvic exenteration (TPE), an en bloc resection is an ultraradical operation for malignancies, and refers to the removal of organs inside the pelvis, including female reproductive organs, lower urological organs and involved parts of the digestive system. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the intra-operative mortality, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate (MR) following TPE in colorectal, gynecological, urological, and miscellaneous cancers.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which three international databases including Medline through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science on November 2023 were searched. To screen and select relevant studies, retrieved articles were entered into Endnote software. The required information was extracted from the full text of the retrieved articles by the authors. Effect measures in this study was the intra-operative, in-hospital, and 90-day and overall MR following TPE. All analyzes are performed using Stata software version 16 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

In this systematic review, 1751 primary studies retrieved, of which 98 articles (5343 cases) entered into this systematic review. The overall mortality rate was 30.57% in colorectal cancers, 25.5% in gynecological cancers and 12.42% in Miscellaneous. The highest rate of mortality is related to the overall mortality rate of colorectal cancers. The MR in open surgeries was higher than in minimally invasive surgeries, and also in primary advanced cancers, it was higher than in recurrent cancers.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it can be said that performing TPE in a specialized surgical center with careful patient eligibility evaluation is a viable option for advanced malignancies of the pelvic organs.

Urological outcomes following pelvic exenteration for non-urological malignancies

Background

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a major surgical procedure used as a salvage therapy for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. Urinary reconstruction is a major part of PE and is often associated with high rates of post-operative complications. In the current study we evaluate the short and long-term urological outcomes following PE for Colo-Rectal (CR) and gyneco-oncological (GO) malignancies.

Methods

Study included 22 patients who underwent PE for recurrent or locally advanced CR and GO malignancies in our institution between the years 2010-2018. The endpoint was post-operative freedom from urological complications.

Results

Of 22 patients included, 13 (59 %) and 9 (41 %) underwent PE for CR and GO malignancies respectively. The mean age of the patients was 54 years. The median follow-up was 19 months. Seven (78 %) patients with GO malignancy and 11 (85 %) with CR malignancy underwent PE for local recurrence. Hydronephrosis prior to surgery existed in 8 (36.3 %) patients, of which, 5 patients required kidney drainage via nephrostomy tube. Two patients underwent posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) with bladder preservation whereas the remaining 20 underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion by ileal conduit. Hydronephrosis post PE developed in 13 patients (59 %). eight (36 %) patients needed kidney drainage by nephrostomy tubes post PE, of these, 6 (75 %) had disease recurrence. The 2 years freedom from kidney drainage was 68 %, however the median time for kidney drainage was 0.5 months. The median overall survival was 12.5 months.

Conclusion

The rate of urological complications following PE is relatively high and associated with disease recurrence.

The Role of Pelvic Exenteration in Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Pelvic exenteration represents a radical procedure aimed at achieving complete tumor resection with negative margins. Although it is the only therapeutic option for some cases of advanced tumors, it is associated with several perioperative complications. We believe that careful patient selection is related to better oncologic outcomes and lower complication rates. The objectives of this review are to identify the most current indications for this intervention, suggest criteria for case selection, evaluate recommendations for perioperative care, and review oncologic outcomes and potential associated complications. To this end, an analysis of English language articles in PubMed was performed, searching for topics such as the indication for pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic neoplasms selection of oncologic cases, the impact of tumor size and extent on oncologic outcomes, preoperative and postoperative surgical management, surgical complications, and outcomes of overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

Organ-sparing central pelvic compartment resection for the treatment of vulvo-vaginal melanomas

Vulvo-vaginal melanomas are one of the rarest gynecological oncology diseases with a poor survival compared with other malignancies. The 5-year survival varies from 13% to 32.3%. Vulvo-vaginal melanomas involving the upper 2/3rds of the vagina are usually treated with total pelvic exenteration (TPE). TPE surgery carries a 50% risk of major complications and also morbidity associated with double stomas. Central pelvic compartment resection is a novel organ-sparing surgical approach entailing radical total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophrectomy, laparoscopic vaginectomy and vulvectomy to reduce morbidity compared with TPE. Permanent suprapubic catheters are used if there is urethral involvement but require quality of life studies to assess their long-term outcomes.

Survival as a clinical outcome and its spiritual significance in a cohort of patients with advanced central pelvic neoplastic disease undergoing total pelvic evisceration: a poorly debated issue

BACKGROUND

Patients with either treatment-resistant or relapsing advanced central pelvic neoplastic disease present with a condition responsible for debilitating symptoms and consequently poor quality of life (QoL). For these patients, therapeutic strategies are very limited and total pelvic evisceration is the only option for relieving the symptoms and increasing survival. Of note, taking charge of these patients cannot be limited to increasing their lifespan but must also be aimed at improving the clinical, psychological, and spiritual conditions. This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the improvement in survival and QoL, focusing on spiritual wellbeing (SWB), in patients with poor life expectancy who underwent total pelvic evisceration for advanced gynecological cancers at our center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The QoL and SWB were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-SWB32, and SWB scale, which were repeatedly administered: 30 days before surgery, 7 days after the procedure, 1 and 3 months after surgery, and then every 3 months until death or the last follow-up assessment. Operative outcomes (blood loss, operative time, hospitalization, and incidence of complications) were evaluated as secondary endpoints. The patients and their families were included in a dedicated psycho-oncological and spiritual support protocol, which was managed by specifically trained and specialized personnel who accompanied them during all phases of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 20 consecutive patients from 2017 to 2022 were included in this study. Of these patients, 7 underwent total pelvic evisceration by laparotomy and 13 underwent laparoscopy. The median survival was 24 months (range: 1-61 months). After a median follow-up of 24 months, 16 (80%) and 10 patients (50%) were alive at 1 year and 2 years after surgery, respectively. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores significantly improved yet at 7 days and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, as compared with the preoperative values. In particular, an early improvement in pain, overall QoL, and physical and emotional functions was observed. With respect to the SWB, the global SWB item score of the EORTC QLQ-SWB32 questionnaire significantly increased after 1 month and 3 months, as compared with preoperative values (p = 0.0153 and p = 0.0018, respectively), and remained stable thereafter. The mean SWB scale score was 53.3, with a sense of low overall SWB in 10 patients, a sense of moderate SWB in eight patients, and a sense of high SWB in two patients. The SWB scale score significantly increased after 7 days, 1 month, and 3 months, as compared with the preoperative value (p = 0202, p = 0.0171, and p = 0.0255, respectively), and remained stable thereafter.

CONCLUSION

Total pelvic evisceration is a valid approach for improving both survival and QoL in selected patients with advanced pelvic neoplasms and poor life expectancy. Our results particularly underline the importance of accompanying the patients and their families during the journey with dedicated psychological and spiritual support protocols.

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: a propensity-matched survival analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the disease-free survival of patients undergoing open versus minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. The secondary endpoints were cancer-specific survival and peri-operative morbidity.

METHODS

A multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients undergoing curative and palliative anterior or total pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancer by a minimally invasive approach and an open approach between June 2010 and May 2021 were included. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. A 1:2 propensity match analysis between patients undergoing minimally invasive and open pelvic exenteration was performed to equalized baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

After propensity match analysis a total of 117 patients were included, 78 (66.7%) and 39 (33.3%) in the open and minimally invasive group, respectively. No significant difference in intra-operative (23.4% vs 10.3%, p=0.13) and major post-operative complications (24.4% vs 17.9%, p=0.49) was evident between the open and minimally invasive approach. Patients undergoing open pelvic exenteration received higher rates of intra-operative transfusions (41.0% vs 17.9%, p=0.013). Median disease-free survival was 17.0 months for both the open and minimally invasive groups (p=0.63). Median cancer-specific survival was 30.0 months and 26.0 months in the open and minimally invasive groups, respectively (p=0.80). Positivity of surgical margins at final histology was the only significant factor influencing the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.31) (p=0.004), while tumor diameter ≥50 mm at the time of pelvic exenteration was the only significant factor influencing the risk of death (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) (p=0.025).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study no survival difference was evident when minimally invasive pelvic exenteration was compared with open pelvic exenteration in patients with gynecological cancer. There was no difference in peri-operative complications, but a higher intra-operative transfusion rate was seen in the open group.