Timing of Intrauterine Manipulator Insertion During Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging and Results of Pelvic Cytology in Endometrial Cancer

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as the standard of care for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on outcomes reported solely from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overlooking valuable data from non-randomised studies. This inaugural systematic review and network meta-analysis comprehensively compares clinical and oncological outcomes between MIS and open surgery for early-stage EC, incorporating evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020186959). All original research of any experimental design reporting clinical and oncological outcomes of surgical treatment for endometrial cancer was included. Study selection was restricted to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published 1 January 1995-31 December 2021. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 99 studies were included in the network meta-analysis, comprising 181,716 women and 14 outcomes. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay but increased operating time. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a significant reduction in ileus (OR = 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.87) and total intra-operative complications (OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.75) as well as a higher disease-free survival (OR = 2.45, 95% CrI: 1.04-6.34). Conclusions: For treating early endometrial cancer, minimal-access surgery via robotic-assisted or laparoscopic techniques appears safer and more efficacious than open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with fewer complications and favourable oncological outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Malignant peritoneal cytologic contamination with robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

Malignant peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer (EC) is not considered an independent adverse prognostic factor for uterine-confined disease and is not a determinant factor in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system. NCCN Guidelines still recommend obtaining cytologies. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peritoneal cytologic contamination following robotic hysterectomy for EC.

METHODS

Peritoneal cytology from the pelvis and diaphragm were obtained at the initiation of surgery, and from the pelvis only at the completion of robotic hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM). Cytology specimens were evaluated for the presence of malignant cells. Pre- and post-hysterectomy cytology results were compared, and pelvic contamination was defined as conversion from negative to positive cytology following surgery.

RESULTS

244 patients underwent robotic hysterectomy with SLNM for EC. Pelvic contamination was identified in 32 (13.1%) cases. In multivariate analysis, pelvic contamination was associated with >50% myometrial invasion, tumor size >2 cm, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and lymph node metastasis. There was no association with FIGO stage or histology subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Malignant peritoneal contamination occurred during robotic surgery for EC. Large lesions (>2 cm), deep invasion (>50%), LVSI, and lymph node metastasis were each independently associated with peritoneal contamination. Whether or not peritoneal contamination increases risk for disease recurrence should be studied in larger series, including an evaluation of patterns of recurrence and the potential impact of adjuvant therapies. Until the clinical impact of peritoneal contamination during hysterectomy for EC is better understood, methods to reduce peritoneal contamination are warranted.

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.

Prospective Multicenter Trial Assessing the Impact of Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion on Oncological Outcome in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery with the use of an Intrauterine Manipulator : Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion and Its Association with Oncological Outcome in Endometrial Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is the standard approach in early-stage endometrial cancer according to evidence showing no compromise in oncological outcomes, but lower morbidity compared with open surgery. However, there are limited data available on the oncological safety of the use of intrauterine manipulators in endometrial cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective multicenter study included patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic staging surgery with the use of an intrauterine manipulator. We obtained three different sets of peritoneal washings: at the beginning of the surgical procedure, after the insertion of the intrauterine manipulator, and after the closure of the vaginal vault. The rate of positive peritoneal cytology conversion and its association with oncological outcomes was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included. Peritoneal cytology was negative in 98 (group 1) and positive in 26 (group 2) patients. In group 2, 16 patients presented with positive cytology at the beginning of the surgery (group 2a) and 10 patients had positive cytology conversion during the procedure (group 2b). Recurrence rate was significantly different among the study groups, amounting to 9.2%, 25.0%, and 60.0% for groups 1, 2a, and 2b, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 1 showed the best recurrence-free and overall survival, followed by group 2a, while patients in group 2b had the worst oncological outcomes (p = 0.002 and p = 0.053, respectively). Peritoneal cytology was an independent predictor of recurrence and death on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

A total of 8.1% of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery with intrauterine manipulation showed positive peritoneal cytology conversion associated with significantly worse oncological outcome.

Malignant peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer: a contemporary review

INTRODUCTION

: In endometrial cancer, malignant peritoneal cytology (MPC) refers to the presence of tumor cells in the peritoneal cytologic specimen obtained at hysterectomy. MPC was once a component of uterine cancer staging criteria, but it is no longer included in the current revision. Multiple societies and organizations, however, continue to recommend peritoneal cytologic testing at the time of hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

AREAS COVERED

This contemporary review provides a clinical summary of recent studies evaluating MPC, including risk factors and prognosis. Compared to prior studies showing a lack of impact on oncologic outcome, recent studies have larger sample sizes, use stricter inclusion criteria, and perform histology/cancer stage-specific analyses to balance risk factors and provide explicit interpretations for oncologic outcomes related to MPC. These newer data provide evidence that MPC does have a prognostic impact.

EXPERT OPINION

Three key domains related to MPC are followings: First, recognition of MPC as a prognostic factor for endometrial cancer irrespective to stage (early and advanced) and histology (endometrioid and non-endometrioid) is necessary. Second, peritoneal cytologic testing at the beginning of each staging surgery is recommended. Last, incorporation of peritoneal cytology status in adjuvant treatment algorithms is useful and merits further development.

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

AIM

The endoscopic approach for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treatment is considered gold standard. Some authors expressed their concern regarding uterine manipulator (UM) as a risk factor for tumor spillage and dissemination allowing peritoneal or lympho-vascular spaces invasion (LVSI). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of UM on the presence of LVSI, recurrence rate and presence of atypical or malignant peritoneal cytology in patients with endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between the use of UM and oncological outcomes. This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 18 studies (3 prospective studies, 13 retrospective studies, and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed no significant difference (RR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.08) in the incidence of LVSI between manipulated hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and between UM group and non-UM group in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.85), no significant difference in the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.74), in the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology between manipulated and non-manipulated hysterectomies in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.89, 95% CI, 0.74 to 4.83) and before and after the use of uterine manipulator (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). We found a positive association between malignant cytology and hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator had been used in a sub-group analysis where LH/LAVH were compared to TAH. (RR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.08-4.71. P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports that the use of uterine manipulator for minimally invasive treatment of endometrial cancer does not increase the rate of recurrence and LVSI. Therefore, the opportunity of any other studies on its use in endometrial cancer women should be questioned.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

Intraoperative tumor spill during minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A survey study on experience and practice

OBJECTIVE

Tumor spill during surgical treatment is associated with adverse oncologic outcomes in many solid tumors. However, in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer, intraoperative tumor spill has not been well studied. This study examined surgeon experiences and practices related to intraoperative tumor spill during minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted to the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Participants were 220 U.S. gynecologic oncologists practicing minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Interventions were 20 questions regarding surgeon demographics, surgical practice patterns (fallopian tubal ablation/ligation, intra-uterine manipulator use, and colpotomy approach), and tumor spill experience (uterine perforation with intra-uterine manipulator and tumor exposure during colpotomy).

RESULTS

Nearly half of the responding surgeons completed subspeciality training >10 years ago (50.5%), and 74.1% had annual surgical volume of >40 cases. The majority of surgeons used an intra-uterine manipulator during minimally invasive hysterectomies for endometrial cancer (90.1%), and 87.2% of the users have experienced uterine perforation with an intra-uterine manipulator. Almost all surgeons performed colpotomy laparoscopically (95.9%), and nearly 60% had experienced tumor spill while making colpotomy (59.8%). Nearly 10-15% of surgeons have changed their postoperative therapy as a result of intraoperative uterine perforation (11.8%) or tumor spill (14.5%). Surgeons infrequently ablated or ligated fallopian tubes prior to performing the hysterectomy (14.1%).

CONCLUSION

Our survey study suggests that many surgeons experienced intraoperative tumor spillage during minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. These findings warrant further studies examining its incidence and impact on clinical outcomes.

A Multicentric Randomized Trial to Evaluate the ROle of Uterine MANipulator on Laparoscopic/Robotic HYsterectomy for the Treatment of Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: The ROMANHY Trial

OBJECTIVE

This prospective randomized trial aimed to assess the impact of the uterine manipulator in terms of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentric randomized trial, enrolled patients were randomly allocated in two groups according to the no use (arm A) or the use (arm B) of the uterine manipulator. Inclusion criteria were G1-G2 early-stage endometrial cancer at preoperative evaluation. The variables collected included baseline demographic characteristics, perioperative data, final pathology report, adjuvant treatment, and follow-up.

RESULTS

In the study, 154 patients (76 in arm A and 78 in arm B) were finally included. No significant differences were recorded regarding the baseline characteristics. A statistically significant difference was found in operative time for the laparoscopic staging (p=0.005), while no differences were reported for the robotic procedures (p=0.419). The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in arm A (p=0.030). No statistically significant differences were recorded between the two study groups in terms of peritoneal cytology, LVSI (p=0.501), and pattern of LVSI (p=0.790). No differences were detected in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival (p=0.996 and p=0.480, respectively). Similarly, no differences were recorded in the number of recurrences, 6 (7.9%) in arm A and 4 (5.2%) in arm B (p=0.486). The use of the uterine manipulator had no impact on DFS both at univariable and multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The intrauterine manipulator does not affect the LVSI in early-stage endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic/robotic staging.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT: 02762214).

Clinico-pathological significance of suspicious peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Suspicious peritoneal cytology refers to the result of peritoneal cytology testing that is insufficient in either quality or quantity for a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. This study examined characteristics and survival outcomes related to suspicious peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A population-based retrospective study by querying the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was conducted. A total of 41,229 women with Stage I-III endometrial cancer who had peritoneal cytologic sampling at hysterectomy from 2010 to 2016 were examined. A Cox proportional hazard regression model and a competing risk analysis with Fine-Gray model were fitted to assess survival outcome related to suspicious peritoneal cytology.

RESULTS

Suspicious peritoneal cytology was seen in 702 (1.7%) cases. In multivariable models, suspicious peritoneal cytology was associated with increased risk of endometrial cancer mortality (subdistribution-hazard ratio [HR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.20, p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted-HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.27-1.90, p < 0.001) compared with negative peritoneal cytology. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that suspicious peritoneal cytology had discrete overall survival improvement compared with malignant peritoneal cytology in a propensity score weighting model (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.72-0.99, p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that suspicious peritoneal cytology may be a prognostic factor for decreased survival in endometrial cancer.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has many benefits, in the form of reduced postoperative morbidity, improved recovery and reduced inpatient stay. It is imperative, however, when new techniques are adopted, in the context of treating oncology patients, that the oncological efficacy and safety are established rigorously rather than assumed based on first principles. Here we have attempted to provide a comprehensive review of all the contentious and topical themes surrounding the use of MIS in the treatment of endometrial and cervix cancer following a thorough review of the literature. On the topic of endometrial cancer, we cover the role of laparoscopy in both early and advanced disease, together with the role and unique benefits of robotic surgery. The surgical challenge of patients with a raised body mass index and the frail and elderly are discussed and finally the role of sentinel lymph node assessment. For cervical cancer, the role of MIS for staging and primary treatment is covered, together with the interesting and highly specialist topics of fertility-sparing treatment, ovarian transposition and the live birth rate associated with this. We end with a discussion on the evidence surrounding the role of adjuvant hysterectomy following radical chemoradiation and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer. MIS is the standard of care for endometrial cancer. The future of MIS for cervix cancer, however, remains uncertain. Current recommendations, based on the available evidence, are that the open approach should be considered the gold standard for the surgical management of early cervical cancer and that MIS should only be adopted in the context of research. Careful counselling of patients on the current evidence, discussing in detail the risks and benefits to enable them to make an informed choice, remains paramount.

Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P<.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.20; P=.006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.97; P=.027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.83; P=.026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P=.63).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.

Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with decreased survival in patients with early cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of an intra-uterine manipulator at the time of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy is associated with inferior oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was carried out of all patients with cervical cancer (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion) to IIA who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at two academic centers between January 2007 and December 2017. Treatment, tumor characteristics, and survival data were retrieved from hospital records.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were identified at the two centers; 115 had surgery with the use of an intra-uterine manipulator while 109 did not; 53 were robotic and 171 were laparoscopic. Median age was 44 years (range 38-54) and median body mass index was 25.8 kg/m2 (range 16.6-51.5). Patients in whom an intra-uterine manipulator was not used at the time of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were more likely to have residual disease at hysterectomy (p<0.001), positive lymphovascular space invasion (p=0.02), positive margins (p=0.008), and positive lymph node metastasis (p=0.003). Recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 80% in the no intra-uterine manipulator group and 94% in the intra-uterine manipulator group. After controlling for the presence of residual cancer at hysterectomy, tumor size and high-risk pathologic criteria (positive margins, parametria or lymph nodes), the use of an intra-uterine manipulator was no longer significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0, p=0.05). The only factor which was consistently associated with recurrence-free survival was tumor size (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.0, for every 10 mm increase, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

After controlling for adverse pathological factors, the use of an intra-uterine manipulator in patients with early cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was not an independent factor associated with rate of recurrence.

The effects of uterine manipulators in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has achieved great success in the surgical treatment of many kinds of cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence evaluating the effects of the use of uterine manipulators in minimally hysterectomies for endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to Sep. 12, 2019 to identify relevant prospective or retrospective studies, using the intersection of "endometrial neoplasms", "endometrial carcinoma", "endometrial cancer"; "uterine manipulator", and "intrauterine manipulator". The initial search identified 251 items in total. The main outcomes of interest were the presence of LVSI (lymphovascular space invasion), the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, and the presence of recurrence during follow-up.

RESULTS

After screening for eligibility, 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis finally. The timing of uterine manipulators insertion during MIS for endometrial cancer was not associated with an increased risk of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). Moreover, there was no significant difference for the rate of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.53, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.77), LVSI (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.11) or the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.74) regarding the use of uterine manipulators for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

We found that the use of uterine manipulators is not associated with an increased incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, LVSI, or recurrence among patients with endometrial cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020147111.

Significance of abnormal peritoneal cytology on survival of women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine survival of women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer whose peritoneal cytology showed malignant or atypical cells (abnormal peritoneal cytology).

METHODS

This is a multi-center retrospective study examining 1668 women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary hysterectomy with available peritoneal cytology results between 2000 and 2015. Abnormal peritoneal cytology was correlated to clinico-pathological characteristics and oncological outcome.

RESULTS

Malignant and atypical cells were seen in 125 (7.5%) and 58 (3.5%) cases, respectively. On multivariate analysis, non-obesity, non-diabetes mellitus, cigarette use, and lympho-vascular space invasion were independently associated with abnormal peritoneal cytology (all, P<0.05). Abnormal peritoneal cytology was independently associated with decreased disease-free survival (hazard ratio 3.07, P<0.001) and cause-specific survival (hazard ratio 3.42, P=0.008) on multivariate analysis. Abnormal peritoneal cytology was significantly associated with increased risks of distant-recurrence (5-year rates: 8.8% versus 3.6%, P=0.001) but not local-recurrence (5.2% versus 3.0%, P=0.32) compared to negative cytology. Among women with stage I disease, abnormal peritoneal cytology was significantly associated with an increased risk of distant-recurrence in the low risk group (5-year rates: 5.5% versus 1.0%, P<0.001) but not in the high-intermediate risk group (13.3% versus 10.8% P=0.60). Among 183 women who had abnormal peritoneal cytology, postoperative chemotherapy significantly reduced the rate of peritoneal recurrence (5-year rates: 1.3% versus 9.2%, P=0.039) whereas postoperative radiotherapy did not (7.1% versus 5.5%, P=0.63).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that abnormal peritoneal cytology may be a prognostic factor for decreased survival in women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer, particularly for low-risk group.

Intrauterine Manipulator Use During Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy and Risk of Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial Cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine an association between intrauterine manipulator (IUM) use and frequency of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in women with endometrial cancer undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted among stage I-IV endometrial cancer patients who underwent hysterectomy between 2008 and 2015. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical details, and tumor characteristics. Women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with IUM use were compared with women who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Review of archived medical record for data collection and propensity score matching were performed to adjust for background differences between TLH-IUM and TAH groups. A systematic literature review with pooled analysis was performed to examine frequency of LVSI.

RESULTS

There were 687 women who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Of those, 419 women underwent TLH with IUM use and 194 women underwent TAH. The most common type of IUM was VCare (89.5%). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of LVSI between the 2 groups: 15.1% for TLH-IUM vs 19.9% for TAH (P = 0.14). After propensity score matching, frequencies of LVSI were similar between the 2 groups: 21.2% for TLH-IUM vs 19.6% for TAH (P = 0.78). Systematic literature review identified 1371 cases of TLH-IUM and 1246 cases of TAH performed for endometrial cancer, and frequencies of LVSI were similar between the 2 groups (15.0% vs 13.6%, P = 0.31).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that IUM use during TLH for endometrial cancer is not associated with increased frequency of LVSI.

Intraperitoneal cytology after laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with endometrial cancer: A retrospective observational study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dissemination of cancer cells at laparoscopic hysterectomy according to the intraperitoneal cytology.Patients with endometrial cancer underwent total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy. Peritoneal wash cytology was performed on entering the peritoneal cavity before surgical preparation and just after hysterectomy.Seventy-eight patients underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Among the 15 patients who had positive intraperitoneal cytology on entering the peritoneal cavity, 10 converted to negative intraperitoneal cytology after hysterectomy. In contrast, among the 63 patients who had negative intraperitoneal cytology on entering the peritoneal cavity, 2 converted to positive intraperitoneal cytology after hysterectomy.While surgery can reduce the number of cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity, leakage can occur, as seen in some cases of hysterectomy. Careful washing must be performed after hysterectomy.

The effect of a uterine manipulator on the recurrence and mortality of endometrial cancer: a multi-centric study by the Italian Society of Gynecological Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Although widely adopted, the use of a uterine manipulator during laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer represents a debated issue, and some authors hypothesize that it potentially may cause an increased risk of relapse, particularly at specific sites.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the risk and site of disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-specific survival in women who had laparoscopic surgery with and without the use of a uterine manipulator.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were reviewed from consecutive patients who had laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging in 7 Italian centers. Subjects were stratified according to whether a uterine manipulator was used during surgery; if so, the type of manipulator was identified. Multivariable analysis to correct for possible confounders and propensity score that matched the minimize selection bias were utilized. The primary outcome was the risk of disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific and overall survival and the site of recurrence, according to the use or no use of the uterine manipulator and to the different types of manipulators used.

RESULTS

We included 951 patients: 579 patients in the manipulator group and 372 patients in the no manipulator group. After a median follow-up period of 46 months (range,12-163 months), the rate of recurrence was 13.5% and 11.6% in the manipulator and no manipulator groups, respectively (P=.37). Positive lymph nodes and myometrial invasion of >50% were associated independently with the risk of recurrence after adjustment for possible confounders. The use of a uterine manipulator did not affect the risk of recurrence, both at univariate (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.77) and multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.70). Disease-free, disease-specific, and overall survivals were similar between groups. Propensity-matched analysis confirmed these findings. The site of recurrence was comparable between groups. In addition, the type of uterine manipulator and the presence or not of a balloon at the tip of the device were not associated significantly with the risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The use of a uterine manipulator during laparoscopic surgery does not affect the risk of recurrence and has no impact on disease-specific or overall survival and on the site of recurrence in women affected by endometrial cancer.

Risk of spilling cancer cells during total laparoscopic hysterectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer

Objective

To evaluate the risk of spilling cancer cells during total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using a uterine manipulator in early-stage endometrial cancer patients.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective study among women undergoing TLH for Clinical Stage IA endometrial cancer between March 2015 and November 2015. Peritoneal washings before the insertion of the uterine manipulator and after TLH were obtained. The two sets of washings were reviewed by a cytopathologist to determine the presence or absence of malignant cells in a blinded manner.

Results

Thirteen endometrial cancer patients (age 39-79 years, median: 62.2 years) were enrolled. The postoperative tumor grades were: G1: 11 (84.6%) and G2: 2 (15.4%). All patients underwent TLH and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Pelvic/para-aortic lymph node dissection was not performed in all cases. Only one patient showed positive peritoneal cytology in the pre-TLH sample. There was high agreement (92.3%) between the two sets of washings in all patients. No patients received postoperative treatment.

Conclusion

We conclude that fallopian tubal cauterization is sufficient to provide protection from the dissemination of cancer cells into the peritoneal cavity at the time of TLH for endometrial cancers in early stages.