The role of imaging in pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancers

Imaging in pelvic exenteration-a multidisciplinary practice guide from the ESGAR-SAR-ESUR-PelvEx collaborative group

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical approach designed for the curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies, requiring en-bloc resection of multiple pelvic organs. While the procedure is radical, it has shown promise in enhancing long-term survival and is now comparable in surgical mortality to elective resections for primary pelvic cancers. Imaging plays a crucial role in preoperative planning, with MRI, CT, and PET/CT being pivotal in assessing the extent of cancer and formulating a surgical roadmap. This paper presents clinical practice guidelines for imaging in the context of PE, developed jointly by ESGAR, SAR, ESUR, and the PelvEx Collaborative. These guidelines aim to standardize imaging protocols and reporting to improve the preoperative assessment and facilitate decision-making in the multidisciplinary treatment of pelvic cancers. Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. KEY POINTS: MRI is mandatory for local staging in pelvic exenteration. Structured reporting (using the template provided in this guide) is recommended. Multidisciplinary review of imaging is critical for surgical planning.

Low incidence of significant hydrogel spacer rectal wall infiltration: results from an experienced high-volume center

Objectives

To evaluate the incidence and degree of rectal wall infiltration (RWI) of spacer gel used during prostate radiotherapy among two practitioners experienced in using rectal spacers.

Materials and methods

Consecutive patients with prostate cancer who received prostate radiotherapy after hydrogel rectal spacer insertion in August 2023-August 2024 by two experienced practitioners were retrospectively included. Post-implant magnetic resonance imaging examinations were evaluated by two radiologists for RWI: 0 (no abnormality), 1 (rectal wall edema), 2 (superficial RWI), and 3 (deep RWI). Scores 2-3 were considered positive for RWI and their location and degree of RWI (radial, longitudinal, and circumferential) were also categorized. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's Kappa.

Results

215 men were included. Agreement was substantial between the radiologists for RWI scores (Kappa, 0.697; 95% confidence interval, 0.594-0.800). RWI scores were 0 in 80.5% (173/215), 1 in 7.9% (17/215), 2 in 10.7% (23/215), and, 3 in 0.9% (2/215) of the men. Altogether, RWI was present (scores 2-3) in 11.6% (25/215), most commonly in the mid-gland and apex with median radial, longitudinal, and circumferential involvement of 3.2 mm, 8.6 mm, and 11.5%. None of these patients demonstrated any significant rectal toxicity.

Conclusion

RWI was very uncommon for experienced practitioners. The degree of RWI was focal and not associated with increased complications.

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.

Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancies: the challenge of patients' selection

Pelvic exenteration is a radical procedure representing a salvage option in patients with recurrent or persistent gynaecological malignancies. It can be performed with an open or minimally invasive approach. Different studies have demonstrated optimal peri-operative outcomes of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration with no survival difference when compared with an open approach. In this article, we discuss the importance and the challenge of patient selection for pelvic exenteration and more specifically for minimally invasive pelvic exenteration.

A modern-day experience with Brunschwig's operation: Outcomes associated with pelvic exenteration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate postoperative and oncologic outcomes associated with pelvic exenteration for non-ovarian gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for non-ovarian gynecologic malignancies at our institution from 1/1/2010-12/31/2019. Palliative exenteration cases were excluded from survival analysis. Postoperative complications were early (≤30 days) or late (31-180 days). Complications were graded using a validated institutional scale. Major complications were considered grade ≥ 3. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients identified, 89 underwent pelvic exenteration for recurrent disease, 5 for palliation, 5 for primary disease, and 1 for persistent disease. Thirty percent had cervical, 27% vulvar, 24% uterine, and 19% vaginal cancer. Sixty-two percent underwent total, 30% anterior, and 8% posterior exenteration. No deaths occurred intraoperatively or within 30 days of surgery. Six patients died after 30 days. Ninety-seven experienced a perioperative complication-49 early, 1 late, and 47 both. Fifty experienced a major complication-22 (44%) early, 19 (38%) late, and 9 (18%) both. No variables were statistically associated with complication development. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 61.0%; the 3-year overall survival rate was 61.6%. Of 58 surviving patients, 16 (28%) and 4 (7%) were alive after 5 and 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The overall complication rate for pelvic exenteration remains high. No variables demonstrated association with complication development as the rate was nearly 100%. The low rate of perioperative mortality is likely due to improved perioperative care.