Sentinel lymphatic mapping for gynecologic malignancies

Surgical Deescalation Within Gynecologic Oncology

Importance

The goal of surgical deescalation is to minimize tissue damage, enhance patient outcomes, and reduce the adverse effects often associated with extensive or traditional surgical procedures. This shift toward less invasive techniques has the potential to revolutionize surgical practices, profoundly impacting the methods and training of future surgeons.

Objective

To evaluate adoption of surgical deescalation within the field of gynecologic oncology using The National Cancer Database.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used prospectively collected data from the National Cancer Database from January 2004 to December 2020. Eligible participants included women in the US who received a diagnosis of clinical stage I to IV endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer within this time frame. Data were analyzed between January and June 2024.

Exposure

Diagnosis of stage I to IV endometrial, ovarian, cervical, or vulvar cancer.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was surgical deescalation, which included evaluation of receipt of surgical intervention, the surgical approach, the type of lymph node assessment, and salvage interventions for disease-affected organs. A Poisson model was applied to estimate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in the receipt of surgical treatment.

Results

A total of 1 218 490 patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 61.2 [13.7] years) were included. Over the study period, the percentage of patients undergoing surgery decreased from 47.4% to 39.9% for those with cervical cancer (AAPC, -1.3%; 95% CI, -1.6% to -1.1%), from 72.0% to 67.9% for those with ovarian cancer (AAPC, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.6% to -0.4%), from 83.7% to 79.1% for those with endometrial cancer (AAPC, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 11 -0.4%), and from 81.1% to 72.6% for those with vulvar cancer (AAPC, -1.3%; 95% CI, -1.6% to -0.9%). The use of minimally invasive surgery increased from 45.8% to 82.2% for those with endometrial cancer (AAPC, 4.6%; 95% CI, 4.5% to 4.8%) and from 13.3% to 37.0% for those with ovarian cancer (AAPC, 9.4%; 95% CI, 9.0% to 9.7%). Sentinel lymph node dissection increased from 0.7% to 39.6% for patients with endometrial cancer (AAPC, 51.8%; 95% CI, 50.5% to 53.2%), from 0.2% to 10.6% for patients with cervical cancer (AAPC, 44.0%; 95% CI, 39.3% to 48.9%), and from 12.3% to 36.9% for patients with vulvar cancer (AAPC, 10.7%; 95% CI, 8.0% to 13.5%) cancers, whereas the rate of complete lymphadenectomies decreased in all 3 groups. The rate of fertility-sparing surgery for patients with cervical cancer younger than 40 years rose from 17.8% to 28.1% (AAPC, 3.1%; 95% CI, 2.3%-3.9%).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that over the past 15 years, the field of gynecologic oncology has moved toward surgical deescalation through an overall reduction in the number of patients who undergo surgery, increased use of minimally invasive surgical techniques, and increased use of sentinel lymph node techniques. Future research should focus not only on understanding the impact of surgical escalation on patients (including disease outcomes, quality of life, and equitable access to these services), but also on surgical training.

Clinicopathological and radiological stratification within FIGO 2018 stages improves risk-prediction in cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Assess the added prognostic value of the updated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 staging system, and to identify clinicopathological and radiological biomarkers for improved FIGO 2018 prognostication.

METHODS

Patient data were retrieved from a prospectively collected patient cohort including all consenting patients with cervical cancer diagnosed and treated at Haukeland University Hospital during 2001-2022 (n = 948). All patients were staged according to the FIGO 2009 and FIGO 2018 guidelines based on available data for individual patients. MRI-assessed maximum tumor diameter and stromal tumor invasion, as well as histopathologically assessed lymphovascular space invasion were applied to categorize patients according to the Sedlis criteria.

RESULTS

FIGO 2018 stage yielded the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) (0.86 versus 0.81 for FIGO 2009) for predicting disease-specific survival. The most common stage migration in FIGO 2018 versus FIGO 2009 was upstaging from stages IB/II to stage IIIC due to suspicious lymph nodes identified by PET/CT and/or MRI. In FIGO 2018 stage III patients, extent and size of primary tumor (p = 0.04), as well as its histological type (p = 0.003) were highly prognostic. Sedlis criteria were prognostic within FIGO 2018 IB patients (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of cross-sectional imaging increases prognostic precision, as suggested by the FIGO 2018 guidelines. The 2018 FIGO IIIC stage could be refined by including the size and extent of primary tumor and histological type. The FIGO IB risk prediction could be improved by applying MRI-assessed tumor size and stromal invasion.