Influence of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in minimally invasive surgery of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Type and approach of hysterectomy and oncological survival of women with stage II cancer of endometrium: a large retrospective cohort study

Objective

To explore the association between the Type and approach of hysterectomy and oncological survival of women with stage II cancer of the endometrium.

Patients and methods

684 women with stage II endometrial cancer were included. Eligible cases were grouped by type of hysterectomy (simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy)and approach of hysterectomy (laparoscopy or laparotomy). The baseline characteristics were compared among groups. The survival outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) were calculated and compared among groups, and the underlying confounding factors were adjusted by the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

Results

The radical hysterectomy group and the simple hysterectomy group had 217 cases and 467 cases, respectively. Between the groups, the difference in 5-year disease-free survival (87.3% versus 87.9%, HR=0.97, P=0.87) and 5-year overall survival (83.8% versus 83.8%, HR=0.95, P=0.95) was not statistically significant. The laparotomy group and the laparoscopy group had 277 cases and 407 cases, respectively. Between the groups, the difference in 5-year disease-free survival (88.7% versus 87.1%, HR=1.22, P=0.34) and 5-year overall survival (85.5% versus 82.7%, HR=1.00, P=0.99) was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

For long-term oncological survival, radical hysterectomy is not superior to total hysterectomy in stage II endometrial cancer. Also, for stage II cancer of the endometrium, laparoscopic hysterectomy is as oncologically safe as open hysterectomy.

Intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: association for pathological factors and oncologic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between intrauterine manipulator use and pathological factors and oncologic outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who had laparoscopic hysterectomy in Japan.

METHODS

This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of the tumor registry of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Study population was 3846 patients who had laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer from January 2015 to December 2017. An automated 1-to-1 propensity score matching with preoperative and intraoperative demographics was performed to assess postoperative pathological factors associated with the intrauterine manipulator. Survival outcomes were assessed by accounting for possible pathological mediators related to intrauterine manipulator use.

RESULTS

Most patients had preoperative stage I disease (96.5%) and grade 1-2 endometrioid tumors (81.9%). During the study period, 1607 (41.8%) patients had intrauterine manipulator use and 2239 (58.2%) patients did not. In the matched cohort, the incidences of lymphovascular space invasion in the hysterectomy specimen were 17.8% in the intrauterine manipulator group and 13.3% in the non-manipulator group. Intrauterine manipulator use was associated with a 35% increased odds of lymphovascular space invasion (adjusted odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.69). The incidences of malignant cells identified in the pelvic peritoneal cytologic sample at hysterectomy were 10.8% for the intrauterine manipulator group and 6.4% for the non-manipulator group. Intrauterine manipulator use was associated with a 77% increased odds of malignant peritoneal cytology (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% Cl 1.29 to 2.31). The 5 year overall survival rates were 94.2% for the intrauterine manipulator group and 96.6% for the non-manipulator group (hazard ratio (HR) 1.64, 95% Cl 1.12 to 2.39). Possible pathological mediators accounted HR was 1.36 (95%Cl 0.93 to 2.00).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide analysis of predominantly early stage, low-grade endometrial cancer in Japan suggested that intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer may be associated with an increased risk of lymphovascular space invasion and malignant peritoneal cytology. Possible mediator effects of intrauterine manipulator use on survival warrant further investigation, especially with a prospective setting.

The Impact of Intrauterine Manipulators on Outcome and Recurrence Patterns of Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery

Objective: To evaluate the use of manipulators on the outcome of women who had minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients operated with or without an intrauterine manipulator. Results: Six hundred ninety-nine patients were included. The median follow-up was 44 months (range, 29-67). Nineteen (8.8%) patients had positive cytology in the manipulator group versus 21 (4.4%) in the comparison group (p = 0.02). Total recurrence rate was similar between the groups (12.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.8). Vaginal vault recurrence was the most common site of recurrence with higher incidence in the manipulator group (4.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis of low-risk patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment showed higher recurrence rate (8.3% vs. 3%; p = 0.023) and worse disease-free survival (p = 0.01) for the manipulator group. After controlling for other variables, the use of a manipulator did not affect the risk of recurrence for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; confidence interval [95% CI], 0.7-2.1, p = 0.3) and for the low-risk subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.8-7, p = 0.08). Conclusion: The use of a manipulator increases the risk of positive cytology as well as vaginal vault recurrences, but it does not reduce the overall survival of patients.

Current analysis of the survival implications for minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of early-stage cervix cancer

Early-stage cervical cancer (ESCC) is managed with radical hysterectomy, a procedure that can be performed either via open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS), the latter of which is accomplished via traditional laparoscopy or robotic-assisted surgery. Previously, MIS was routinely incorporated into the management of ESCC due to the approach's reduced operative morbidity and truncated hospital stay duration, but more recent clinical evidence has since impugned the efficacy of MIS because of the reportedly inferior disease-free survival and overall survival outcomes compared to open surgery. However, additional studies have documented equivalent outcomes among the various surgical modalities, suggesting further exploration of clinical factors as we endeavor to conclusively determine the standard of care for patients diagnosed with ESCC.

Intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effects on oncologic outcomes of intrauterine manipulator use during laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was performed by an expert librarian in multiple electronic databases from inception to January 31, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all studies in the English language that compared oncologic outcomes (recurrence-free, cause-specific, or overall survival) between endometrial cancer patients who underwent total laparoscopic or robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer with vs without the use of an intrauterine manipulator. Studies comparing only peritoneal cytology status or lymphovascular space invasion were summarized for completeness. No selection criteria were applied to the study design.

METHODS

Four reviewers independently reviewed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for oncologic outcomes using the random effect model. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 tests. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger test.

RESULTS

Out of 350 identified references, we included 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies for a total of 14 studies and 5,019 patients. The use of an intrauterine manipulator during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was associated with a pooled hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P=.05; I2=31%; chi square P value=.22). Pooled hazard ratio for recurrence was 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.25-8.76; P=.62; I2=67%; chi square P value=.08) when only randomized controlled trials were considered. Pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.76; P=0.79; I2=44%; chi square P value=.17). The rate of positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion did not differ using an intrauterine manipulator.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine manipulator use during hysterectomy for endometrial cancer was neither significantly associated with recurrence-free and overall survival nor with positive peritoneal cytology or lymphovascular space invasion, but further prospective studies are needed.

Impact of surgical approach on progress of disease by type of histology in stage IA endometrial cancer: a matched-pair analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the impact of surgical approach on progression free survival (PFS) stratified by histologic type in women diagnosed with stage IA endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Myometrial invasion is classified into no myometrial invasion, <50% and ≥50%, with only no myometrial invasion and <50% are included in stage IA patients. A retrospective study is designed by collecting data from women diagnosed as stage IA endometrial cancer from January 2010 to December 2019 in a tertiary hospital. A propensity score is conducted for 1:1 matching in the low-risk histologic patients. Progression free survival and disease-specific survival data are evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test in both the whole population and the matched-pair groups. A sub-group analysis is performed to figure out risk factors associated with the effect of surgical approach on PFS and disease-specific survival (DSS).

RESULTS

534 (84.49%) low-risk histologic endometrial cancer women, with 389 (72.85%) operated by minimally invasive surgery and 145 (27.15%) by open approach, and 98 (15.51%) high-risk histology, with 71 (72.45%) by laparoscopy and 27 (27.55%) by open surgery, are included. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopy results in lower progression free survival in low-risk patients before and after matching (p = 0.039 and p = 0.033, respectively), but shows no difference in high-risk patients (p = 0.519). Myometrial invasion is associated with lower progression free survival in laparoscopy in low-risk histology (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Surgical approaches influence progression free survival in stage IA low-risk histologic diseases, especially in those with myometrial invasion, but not in high-risk histologic endometrial cancer.

Metastases and Recurrence Risk Factors in Endometrial Cancer-The Role of Selected Molecular Changes, Hormonal Factors, Diagnostic Methods and Surgery Procedures

The presence of metastatic endometrial cancer (EC) is a key problem in treatment failure associated with reduced overall survival rates. The most common metastatic location is the pelvic lymph nodes, and the least common is the brain. The presence of metastasis depends on many factors, including the molecular profile of cancer (according to the TCGA-Genome Atlas), the activity of certain hormones (estrogen, prolactin), and pro-inflammatory adipocytokines. Additionally, an altered expression of microRNAs affecting the regulation of numerous genes is also related to the spread of cancer. This paper also discusses the value of imaging methods in detecting metastases; the primary role is attributed to the standard transvaginal USG with the tumor-free distance (uTFD) option. The influence of diagnostic and therapeutic methods on EC spread is also described. Hysteroscopy, according to the analysis discussed above, may increase the risk of metastases through a fluid medium, mainly performed in advanced stages of EC. According to another analysis, laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with particular attention to avoiding risky procedures (trocar flushing, tissue traumatization, preserving a margin of normal tissue) was not found to increase the risk of EC dissemination.

Use of uterine manipulator and uterine perforation in minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

Safety of the uterine manipulator (UM) within endometrial cancer (EC) surgery is being questioned. Its use might be one of the issues for potential tumor dissemination during the procedure, especially in the case of uterine perforation (UP). No prospective data on this surgical complication, nor on the oncological consequences exist. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of UP while using UM when performing surgery for EC and the impact of UP on the choice of adjuvant treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective single-center cohort study from November 2018 to February 2022, considering all EC cases surgically treated by a minimally invasive approach with the help of a UM. Demographic, preoperative, postoperative and adjuvant treatment corresponding to the included patients were collected and comparatively analyzed according to the absence or presence of a UP.

RESULTS

Of the 82 patients included in the study, 9 UPs (11%) occurred during surgery. There was no significant difference in demographics and disease characteristics at diagnosis that may have induced UP. The type of UM used or the approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) did not influence the occurrence of UP (p = 0.44). No positive peritoneal cytology was found post hysterectomy. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of lymph-vascular space invasion within the perforation group, 67% vs. 25% in the no perforation group, p = 0.02. Two out of nine (22%) adjuvant therapies were changed because of UP. The median follow-up time for patients was 7.6 months (range 0.5-33.1 months). No recurrence was found in the UP group.

CONCLUSION

Our study found a uterine perforation rate of 11%. This information needs to be further integrated to consider the usefulness of MU for EC surgery.

Clinical Relevance of Uterine Manipulation on Oncologic Outcome in Robot-Assisted versus Open Surgery in the Management of Endometrial Cancer

In this study, we investigated the impact of uterine manipulation on endometrial cancer survival outcomes. We analyzed patients with endometrial cancer who underwent robot-assisted staging and open staging surgery between 2010 and 2020. Either uterine manipulators or vaginal tubes were utilized in robot-assisted staging. Propensity score matching was performed to correct baseline characteristics. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. In total, 574 patients, including those undergoing robot-assisted staging with a uterine manipulator (n = 213) or vaginal tube (n = 147) and staging laparotomy (n = 214), were analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed for age, histology, and stage as covariates. Before matching, Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that PFS and OS were significantly different among the three groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively). In the propensity-matched cohorts of 147 women, the previously suggested differences in PFS and OS were not observed in patients undergoing robot-assisted staging with a uterine manipulator or vaginal tube or open surgery. In conclusion, robotic surgery using a uterine manipulator or vaginal tube did not compromise survival outcomes in endometrial cancer management.