1
|
Levin G, Pareja R, Viveros-Carreño D, Sanchez Diaz E, Yates EM, Zand B, Ramirez PT. Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024:ijgc-2023-005162. [PMID: 38627032 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/24/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. METHODS Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. RESULTS The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2-64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2-48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (β=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (β=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. CONCLUSION A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Levin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - David Viveros-Carreño
- Unidad Ginecología Oncológica, Grupo de Investigación GIGA, Centro de Tratamiento e Investigación sobre Cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo - CTIC, Bogotá, Colombia
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Emmanuel Sanchez Diaz
- Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Clinica Universitaria Bolivariana, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Elise Mann Yates
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Behrouz Zand
- Gynecologic Oncology, Houston Methodist, Shenandoah, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Marcus HJ, Ramirez PT, Khan DZ, Layard Horsfall H, Hanrahan JG, Williams SC, Beard DJ, Bhat R, Catchpole K, Cook A, Hutchison K, Martin J, Melvin T, Stoyanov D, Rovers M, Raison N, Dasgupta P, Noonan D, Stocken D, Sturt G, Vanhoestenberghe A, Vasey B, McCulloch P. Author Correction: The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring. Nat Med 2024; 30:1213. [PMID: 38297095 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-02836-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Hani J Marcus
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK.
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Houston Methodist Hospital Neal Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Danyal Z Khan
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Hugo Layard Horsfall
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - John G Hanrahan
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Simon C Williams
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - David J Beard
- RCS Surgical Interventional Trials Unit (SITU) & Robotic and Digital Surgery Initiative (RADAR), Nuffield Dept Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculo-skeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rani Bhat
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, India
| | - Ken Catchpole
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Andrew Cook
- NIHR Coordinating Centre and Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Janet Martin
- Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tom Melvin
- Department of Medical Gerontology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
| | - Danail Stoyanov
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Maroeska Rovers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Nicholas Raison
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- King's Health Partners Academic Surgery, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Deborah Stocken
- RCSEng Surgical Trials Centre, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Anne Vanhoestenberghe
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Baptiste Vasey
- Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter McCulloch
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kyrgiou M, Bowden S, Denny L, Fagotti A, Abu-Rustum NR, Ramirez PT, Querleu D. Innovation in gynaecological cancer: highlighting global disparities. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:425-430. [PMID: 38461833 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00137-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/12/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Kyrgiou
- Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction - Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| | - Sarah Bowden
- Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction - Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Lynette Denny
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, South Africa
| | - Anna Fagotti
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health Sciences, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA)
| | - Denis Querleu
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health Sciences, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bizzarri N, Obermair A, Hsu HC, Chacon E, Collins A, Tsibulak I, Mutombo A, Abu-Rustum NR, Balaya V, Buda A, Cibula D, Covens A, Fanfani F, Ferron G, Frumovitz M, Guani B, Kocian R, Kohler C, Leblanc E, Lecuru F, Leitao MM, Mathevet P, Mueller MD, Papadia A, Pareja R, Plante M, Querleu D, Scambia G, Tanner E, Zapardiel I, Garcia JR, Ramirez PT. Consensus on surgical technique for sentinel lymph node dissection in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024; 34:504-509. [PMID: 38378695 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus on the surgical technique for sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in cervical cancer. METHODS A 26 question survey was emailed to international expert gynecological oncology surgeons. A two-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. After a first round of online survey, the questions were amended and a second round, along with semistructured interviews was performed. Consensus was defined using a 70% cut-off for agreement. RESULTS Twenty-five of 38 (65.8%) experts responded to the first and second rounds of the online survey. Agreement ≥70% was reached for 13 (50.0%) questions in the first round and for 15 (57.7%) in the final round. Consensus agreement identified 15 recommended, three optional, and five not recommended steps. Experts agreed on the following recommended procedures: use of indocyanine green as a tracer; superficial (with or without deep) injection at 3 and 9 o'clock; injection at the margins of uninvolved mucosa avoiding vaginal fornices; grasping the cervix with forceps only in part of the cervix is free of tumor; use of a minimally invasive approach for SLN biopsy in the case of simple trachelectomy/conization; identification of the ureter, obliterated umbilical artery, and external iliac vessels before SLN excision; commencing the dissection at the level of the uterine artery and continuing laterally; and completing dissection in one hemi-pelvis before proceeding to the contralateral side. Consensus was also reached in recommending against injection at 6 and 12 o'clock, and injection directly into the tumor in cases of the tumor completely replacing the cervix; against removal of nodes through port without protective maneuvers; absence of an ultrastaging protocol; and against modifying tracer concentration at the time of re-injection after mapping failure. CONCLUSION Recommended, optional, and not recommended steps of SLN dissection in cervical cancer have been identified based on consensus among international experts. These represent a surgical guide that may be used by surgeons in clinical trials and for quality assurance in routine practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Andreas Obermair
- Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Heng-Cheng Hsu
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan
| | - Enrique Chacon
- Gynaecologic Oncology, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Anna Collins
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - Irina Tsibulak
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Alex Mutombo
- Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
| | - Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Vincent Balaya
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Felix Guyon Hospital, CHU Nord Réunion, France
| | - Alessandro Buda
- Gynaecologic Oncology, Ospedale Michele e Pietro Ferrero, Verduno, Italy
| | - David Cibula
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Allan Covens
- Gynecologic Oncology, Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Francesco Fanfani
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Gwenaël Ferron
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Claudius Regaud Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Benedetta Guani
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fribourg Hospitals, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | - Roman Kocian
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Christhardt Kohler
- Department of Gynaecology, University of Cologne, Koln, Germany
- Department of Special Operative and Oncologic Gynaecology, Asklepios-Clinic Hamburg-Altona, Asklepios Hospital Group, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Eric Leblanc
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | - Fabrice Lecuru
- Breast, Gynaecology, and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Institute Curie, Paris, France
| | - Mario M Leitao
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Patrice Mathevet
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Departement de gynecologie-obstetrique et genetique medicale, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Michael D Mueller
- Gynaecology and Gynaecological Oncology, Inselspital University Hospital Berne Department of Gynaecology, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Papadia
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland
- Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Rene Pareja
- Department of Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology, Clinica Astorga, Medellin, Colombia
- Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
| | | | - Denis Querleu
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna, del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Edward Tanner
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Ignacio Zapardiel
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jaime R Garcia
- Department of Academic Analytics and Technology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Newman C, Petruzzi V, Ramirez PT, Hobday C. Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J 2024; 20:4-12. [PMID: 38495660 PMCID: PMC10941709 DOI: 10.14797/mdcvj.1305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024] Open
Abstract
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), women who have a systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or a diastolic pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg before pregnancy or before 20 weeks of gestation have chronic hypertension. Up to 1.5% of women in their childbearing years have a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, and 16% of pregnant women develop hypertension during their pregnancy. Physiological cardiovascular changes from pregnancy may mask or exacerbate hypertensive diseases during gestation, which is why prepregnancy counseling is emphasized for all patients to optimize comorbidities and establish a patient's baseline blood pressure. This review provides an overview of the diagnoses and treatments of hypertensive diseases that can occur in pregnancy, including definitions of key terms and types of hypertension as well as ACOG recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney Newman
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, US
| | - Victoria Petruzzi
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, US
| | - Pedro T. Ramirez
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Gynecological Oncology Department, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, US
| | - Christopher Hobday
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Houston Methodist, Houston, Texas, US
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Navarro Santana B, Viveros-Carreño D, Ramirez PT. Response to: Correspondence on "Complications of HIPEC for ovarian cancer surgery: evaluation over two time periods" by Lavoue et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024:ijgc-2024-005431. [PMID: 38460969 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2024-005431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/11/2024] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - David Viveros-Carreño
- Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia and Clínica Los Nogales, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ledermann JA, Matias-Guiu X, Amant F, Concin N, Davidson B, Fotopoulou C, González-Martin A, Gourley C, Leary A, Lorusso D, Banerjee S, Chiva L, Cibula D, Colombo N, Croce S, Eriksson AG, Falandry C, Fischerova D, Harter P, Joly F, Lazaro C, Lok C, Mahner S, Marmé F, Marth C, McCluggage WG, McNeish IA, Morice P, Nicum S, Oaknin A, Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Pignata S, Ramirez PT, Ray-Coquard I, Romero I, Scambia G, Sehouli J, Shapira-Frommer R, Sundar S, Tan DSP, Taskiran C, van Driel WJ, Vergote I, Planchamp F, Sessa C, Fagotti A. ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol 2024; 35:248-266. [PMID: 38307807 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 11/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2024] Open
Abstract
The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A Ledermann
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
| | - X Matias-Guiu
- CIBERONC, Madrid; Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, IRBLLEIDA, University of Lleida, Lleida; Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - F Amant
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Concin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria; Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - B Davidson
- Department of Pathology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo; Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - C Fotopoulou
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A González-Martin
- Department of Medical Oncology and Program in Solid Tumours-Cima, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Gourley
- Cancer Research UK Scotland Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - A Leary
- Department of Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - D Lorusso
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - S Banerjee
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - L Chiva
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Cancer Center Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Navarra, Spain
| | - D Cibula
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - N Colombo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia IRCCS, Milan; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - S Croce
- Department of Biopathology, Bergonié Institut, Bordeaux, France
| | - A G Eriksson
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - C Falandry
- Institute of Aging, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon; CarMeN Laboratory, INSERM U1060/Université Lyon 1/INRAE U1397/Hospices Civils Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France
| | - D Fischerova
- Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - P Harter
- Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany
| | - F Joly
- GINECO Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Centre François-Baclesse, University of Caen Normandy, Caen, France
| | - C Lazaro
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO-IDIBELL-CIBERONC), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - C Lok
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Mahner
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich
| | - F Marmé
- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Study Group, Germany; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim; Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - C Marth
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - W G McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - I A McNeish
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - P Morice
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | - S Nicum
- Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - A Oaknin
- Gynaecologic Cancer Programme, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona
| | - J A Pérez-Fidalgo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico Universitario - INCLIVA, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Pignata
- Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Napoli, IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - P T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA
| | - I Ray-Coquard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - I Romero
- Department of Medical Oncology, Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - G Scambia
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - J Sehouli
- North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin; Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité Berlin University of Medicine, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - S Sundar
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; Pan Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - D S P Tan
- Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; National University of Singapore (NUS) Centre for Cancer Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Cancer Science Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - C Taskiran
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, School of Medicine, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - W J van Driel
- Department of Gynecology, Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Vergote
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - C Sessa
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - A Fagotti
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome; Department of Woman, Child and Public Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ramirez PT. When Less Is More - The Importance of Patient Selection. N Engl J Med 2024; 390:861-862. [PMID: 38416435 DOI: 10.1056/nejme2400423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/29/2024]
|
9
|
Jorgensen KA, Agusti N, Wu CF, Kanbergs A, Pareja R, Ramirez PT, Rauh-Hain JA, Melamed A. Fertility-sparing surgery vs standard surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: difference in 5-year life expectancy by tumor size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024:S0002-9378(24)00084-X. [PMID: 38365097 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.02.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Revised: 01/31/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cervical cancer incidence among premenopausal women is rising, and fertility-sparing surgery serves as an important option for this young population. There is a lack of evidence on what tumor size cutoff should be used to define candidacy for fertility-sparing surgery. OBJECTIVE We sought to describe how the association between fertility-sparing surgery (compared with standard surgery) and life expectancy varies by tumor size among patients with cervical cancers measuring ≤4 cm in largest diameter. Our secondary objective was to quantify the probability of undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy among patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery as a function of tumor size. STUDY DESIGN We identified patients in the National Cancer Database aged ≤45 years, diagnosed with stage I cervical cancer with tumors ≤4 cm between 2006 and 2018, who received no preoperative radiation or chemotherapy, and who underwent either fertility-sparing surgery (cone or trachelectomy, either simple or radical) or standard surgery (simple or radical hysterectomy) as their primary treatment. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery with those who underwent standard surgery. A flexible parametric model was employed to quantify the difference in life expectancy within 5 years of diagnosis (restricted mean survival time) based on tumor size among patients who underwent fertility-sparing and those who underwent standard surgery. In addition, among those who underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between tumor size and the probability of receiving adjuvant radiation. RESULTS A total of 11,946 patients met the inclusion criteria of whom 904 (7.6%) underwent fertility-sparing surgery. After propensity-score matching, 897 patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery were matched 1:1 with those who underwent standard surgery. Although the 5-year life expectancy was similar among patients who had fertility sparing surgery and those who had standard surgery regardless of tumor sizes, the estimates of life-expectancy differences associated with fertility-sparing surgery were more precise among patients with smaller tumors (1-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.10 months; 95% confidence interval, -0.67 to 0.47) than among those with larger tumors (4-cm tumor: restricted mean survival time difference, -0.11 months; 95% confidence interval, -3.79 to 3.57). The probability of receiving adjuvant radiation increased with tumor size, ranging from 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-7.9) for a 1-cm tumor to 37% (95% confidence interval, 24.3-51.8) for a 4-cm tumor. CONCLUSION Within 5 years of diagnosis, young patients with stage I cancers measuring ≤4 cm had similar survival outcomes after either fertility-sparing surgery or standard surgery. However, because few patients with tumors >2 cm underwent fertility-sparing surgery, a clinically important survival difference could not be excluded in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kirsten A Jorgensen
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| | - Nuria Agusti
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Chi-Fang Wu
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alexa Kanbergs
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Rene Pareja
- Clínica de Oncología Astorga, Medellín, Colombia; Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX
| | - Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Alexander Melamed
- Vincent Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Huepenbecker SP, Iniesta MD, Wang XS, Cain KE, Zorrilla-Vaca A, Shen SE, Basabe MS, Suki T, Garcia Lopez JE, Mena GE, Lasala JD, Williams LA, Ramirez PT, Meyer LA. Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:241.e1-241.e18. [PMID: 37827271 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Revised: 10/05/2023] [Accepted: 10/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. STUDY DESIGN We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms. RESULTS The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups. CONCLUSION Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah P Huepenbecker
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Xin S Wang
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katherine E Cain
- Division of Pharmacy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Andres Zorrilla-Vaca
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shu-En Shen
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Sol Basabe
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Tina Suki
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Juan E Garcia Lopez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Gabriel E Mena
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Javier D Lasala
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Loretta A Williams
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Marcus HJ, Ramirez PT, Khan DZ, Layard Horsfall H, Hanrahan JG, Williams SC, Beard DJ, Bhat R, Catchpole K, Cook A, Hutchison K, Martin J, Melvin T, Stoyanov D, Rovers M, Raison N, Dasgupta P, Noonan D, Stocken D, Sturt G, Vanhoestenberghe A, Vasey B, McCulloch P. The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring. Nat Med 2024; 30:61-75. [PMID: 38242979 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02732-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
The next generation of surgical robotics is poised to disrupt healthcare systems worldwide, requiring new frameworks for evaluation. However, evaluation during a surgical robot's development is challenging due to their complex evolving nature, potential for wider system disruption and integration with complementary technologies like artificial intelligence. Comparative clinical studies require attention to intervention context, learning curves and standardized outcomes. Long-term monitoring needs to transition toward collaborative, transparent and inclusive consortiums for real-world data collection. Here, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring (IDEAL) Robotics Colloquium proposes recommendations for evaluation during development, comparative study and clinical monitoring of surgical robots-providing practical recommendations for developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare systems. Multiple perspectives are considered, including economics, surgical training, human factors, ethics, patient perspectives and sustainability. Further work is needed on standardized metrics, health economic assessment models and global applicability of recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hani J Marcus
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK.
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Houston Methodist Hospital Neal Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Danyal Z Khan
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Hugo Layard Horsfall
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - John G Hanrahan
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Simon C Williams
- Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital of Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - David J Beard
- RCS Surgical Interventional Trials Unit (SITU) & Robotic and Digital Surgery Initiative (RADAR), Nuffield Dept Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculo-skeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rani Bhat
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, India
| | - Ken Catchpole
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Andrew Cook
- NIHR Coordinating Centre and Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Janet Martin
- Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tom Melvin
- Department of Medical Gerontology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
| | - Danail Stoyanov
- Wellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, UK
| | - Maroeska Rovers
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Nicholas Raison
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- King's Health Partners Academic Surgery, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Deborah Stocken
- RCSEng Surgical Trials Centre, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Anne Vanhoestenberghe
- School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Baptiste Vasey
- Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter McCulloch
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Schivardi G, Casarin J, Habermann EB, Bews KA, Langstraat CL, Cliby W, Cucinella G, De Vitis LA, Ramirez PT, Aletti GD, Mariani A, Multinu F. Practice patterns and complications of hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 230:69.e1-69.e10. [PMID: 37690596 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2023] [Revised: 09/03/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND After the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, the standard surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer is open radical hysterectomy. Only limited data were available regarding whether the change to open abdominal hysterectomy observed after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial led to an increase in postoperative complication rates as a consequence of the decrease in the use of the minimally invasive approach. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to analyze whether there was a correlation between the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and an increase in the 30-day complications associated with surgical treatment of invasive cervical cancer. STUDY DESIGN Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were used to compare the results in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2016 to December 2017) vs the results in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2019 to December 2020). The rates of each surgical approach (open abdominal or minimally invasive) hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer during the 2 periods were assessed. Subsequently, 30-day major complication, minor complication, unplanned hospital readmission, and intra- or postoperative transfusion rates before and after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial were compared. RESULTS Overall, 3024 patients undergoing either open abdominal hysterectomy or minimally invasive hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer were included in the study. Of the patients, 1515 (50.1%) were treated in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, and 1509 (49.9%) were treated in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period. The rate of minimally invasive approaches decreased significantly from 75.6% (1145/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 41.1% (620/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, whereas the rate of open abdominal approach increased from 24.4% (370/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 58.9% (889/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (P<.001). The overall 30-day major complications remained stable between the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (85/1515 [5.6%]) and the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (74/1509 [4.9%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.17). The overall 30-day minor complications were similar in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (103/1515 [6.8%]) vs the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (120/1509 [8.0%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.55). The unplanned hospital readmission rate remained stable during the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (7.9% per 30 person-days) and during the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (6.3% per 30 person-days) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.04)]. The intra- and postoperative transfusion rates increased significantly from 3.8% (58/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 6.7% (101/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (adjusted odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.53). CONCLUSION This study observed a significant shift in the surgical approach for invasive cervical cancer after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, with a reduction in the minimally invasive abdominal approach and an increase in the open abdominal approach. The change in surgical approach was not associated with an increase in the rate of 30-day major or minor complications and unplanned hospital readmission, although it was associated with an increase in the transfusion rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriella Schivardi
- Department of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jvan Casarin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Children Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
| | - Elizabeth B Habermann
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN
| | - Katherine A Bews
- Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Rochester, MN
| | | | - William Cliby
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Luigi A De Vitis
- Department of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX
| | - Giovanni D Aletti
- Department of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy; Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
| | - Andrea Mariani
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Francesco Multinu
- Department of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Milan, Italy; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Basabe MS, Suki TS, Munsell MF, Iniesta MD, Garcia Lopez JE, Hillman RT, Cain K, Huepenbecker S, Mena G, Taylor JS, Ramirez PT, Meyer LA. Evaluation of a tiered opioid prescription algorithm in an ERAS pathway: exploring opportunities for further refinement. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 34:ijgc-2023-004948. [PMID: 38123191 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Opioid over-prescription is wasteful and contributes to the opioid crisis. We implemented a personalized tiered discharge opioid protocol and education on opioid disposal to minimize over-prescription. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the intervention by investigating opioid use post-discharge for women undergoing abdomino-pelvic surgery, and patient adherence to opioid disposal education. METHODS We analyzed post-discharge opioid consumption among 558 patients. Eligible patients included those who underwent elective gynecologic surgery, were not taking scheduled opioids pre-operatively, and received discharge opioids according to a tiered prescribing algorithm. A survey assessing discharge opioid consumption and disposal safety knowledge was distributed on post-discharge day 21. Over-prescription was defined as >20% of the original prescription left over. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS The survey response rate was 61% and 59% in the minimally invasive surgery and open surgery cohorts, respectively. Overall, 42.8% of patients reported using no opioids after hospital discharge, 45.2% in the minimally invasive surgery and 38.6% in the open surgery cohort. Furthermore, 74.9% of respondents were over-prescribed, with median age being statistically significant for this group (p=0.004). Finally, 46.4% of respondents expressed no knowledge regarding safe disposal practices, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p>0.99). CONCLUSION Despite implementation of the tiered discharge opioid algorithm aimed to personalize opioid prescriptions to estimated need, we still over-prescribed opioids. Additionally, despite targeted education, nearly half of all patients who completed the survey did not know how to dispose of their opioid tablets. Additional efforts are needed to further refine the algorithm to reduce over-prescription of opioids and improve disposal education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Sol Basabe
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tina S Suki
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mark F Munsell
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Juan E Garcia Lopez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Robert Tyler Hillman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Katherine Cain
- Department of Pharmacy Clinical Programs, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sarah Huepenbecker
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gabriel Mena
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jolyn S Taylor
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Angeles MA, De Vitis LA, Cucinella G, Bonaldo G, Bizzarri N, Agusti N, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, El Hajj H, Theofanakis C, Bilir E, Hsu HC, Estrada EE, Pareja R, Fotopoulou C, du Bois A, Plante M, Rauh-Hain JA, Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Gultekin M, Joura E, Fagotti A, Ramirez PT. Highlights from the 24th European Congress on Gynaecological Oncology in Istanbul: an ENYGO-IJGC Fellows compilation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2023-005109. [PMID: 38114163 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Luigi Antonio De Vitis
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York, USA
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Cucinella
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Giulio Bonaldo
- Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
- Department of Women and Children's Health, Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Nuria Agusti
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | | | - Charalampos Theofanakis
- Unit of Gynaecologic Oncology, Alexandra Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Health Sciences, Athens, Greece
| | - Esra Bilir
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
- Department of Global Health, Koc University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Die Klinik in Preetz, Preetz, Germany
| | - Heng-Cheng Hsu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | | | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia, Medellin, Colombia
| | | | - Andreas du Bois
- Dept. GYN and GYN Oncology, KEM; Kliniken Essen Mitte, Essen, Germany
| | - Marie Plante
- Gynecologic Oncology Division, CHU de Quebec, L'Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mansoor Raza Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet; Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Bradley J Monk
- Virginia G Piper Cancer Center - Biltmore Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Murat Gultekin
- Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Elmar Joura
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
| | - Anna Fagotti
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Santía MC, Vilches JC, Ramirez PT. Combination of hormonal-based therapy in endometrial cancer: ready for prime time. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1682-1683. [PMID: 37875324 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-005031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- María Clara Santía
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - José C Vilches
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Quiron Salud Malaga, Malaga, Spain
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Ribeiro R, Vieira Gomes MT, Schmidt RL, Bedoya L, Isla DO, Pareja R, Rendón Pereira GJ, Lopez A, Kushner D, Cibula D. MILACC study: could undetected lymph node micrometastases have impacted recurrence rate in the LACC trial? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1684-1689. [PMID: 37652529 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/02/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The etiology of inferior oncologic outcomes associated with minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer remains unknown. Manipulation of lymph nodes with previously unrecognized low-volume disease might explain this finding. We re-analyzed lymph nodes by pathologic ultrastaging in node-negative patients who recurred in the LACC (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer) trial. METHODS Included patients were drawn from the LACC trial database, had negative lymph nodes on routine pathologic evaluation, and recurred to the abdomen and/or pelvis. Patients without recurrence or without available lymph node tissue were excluded. Paraffin tissue blocks and slides from all lymph nodes removed by lymphadenectomy were re-analyzed per standard ultrastaging protocol aimed at the detection of micrometastases (>0.2 mm and ≤2 mm) and isolated tumor cells (clusters up to 0.2 mm or <200 cells). RESULTS The study included 20 patients with median age of 42 (range 30-68) years. Most patients were randomized to minimally invasive surgery (90%), had squamous cell carcinoma (65%), FIGO 2009 stage 1B1 (95%), grade 2 (60%) disease, had no adjuvant treatment (75%), and had a single site of recurrence (55%), most commonly at the vaginal cuff (45%). Only one patient had pelvic sidewall recurrence in the absence of other disease sites. The median number of lymph nodes analyzed per patient was 18.5 (range 4-32) for a total of 412 lymph nodes. A total of 621 series and 1242 slides were reviewed centrally by the ultrastaging protocol. No metastatic disease of any size was found in any lymph node. CONCLUSIONS There were no lymph node low-volume metastases among patients with initially negative lymph nodes who recurred in the LACC trial. Therefore, it is unlikely that manipulation of lymph nodes containing clinically undetected metastases is the underlying cause of the higher local recurrence risk in the minimally invasive arm of the LACC trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roni Nitecki
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pavel Dundr
- Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Kristyna Nemejcova
- Pathology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Reitan Ribeiro
- Surgery, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Hospital, Brazil
| | | | | | - Lucio Bedoya
- Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Misercordia, Cordoba, Argentina
| | - David Ortiz Isla
- Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica Astorga, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Medellin, Colombia
| | | | - Aldo Lopez
- Gynecologic Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Lima, Peru
| | - David Kushner
- Gynecologic Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - David Cibula
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bogani G, Ray-Coquard I, Mutch D, Vergote I, Ramirez PT, Prat J, Concin N, Ngoi NYL, Coleman RL, Enomoto T, Takehara K, Denys H, Lorusso D, Takano M, Sagae S, Wimberger P, Segev Y, Kim SI, Kim JW, Herrera F, Mariani A, Brooks RA, Tan D, Paolini B, Chiappa V, Longo M, Raspagliesi F, Benedetti Panici P, Di Donato V, Caruso G, Colombo N, Pignata S, Zannoni G, Scambia G, Monk BJ. Gestational choriocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1504-1514. [PMID: 37758451 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004704] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Gestational choriocarcinoma accounts for 5% of gestational trophoblastic neoplasms. Approximately 50%, 25%, and 25% of gestational choriocarcinoma occur after molar pregnancies, term pregnancies, and other gestational events, respectively. The FIGO scoring system categorizes patients into low (score 0 to 6) and high risk (score 7 or more) choriocarcinoma. Single-agent and multi-agent chemotherapy are used in low- and high-risk patients, respectively. Chemotherapy for localized disease has a goal of eradication of disease without surgery and is associated with favorable prognosis and fertility preservation. Most patients with gestational choriocarcinoma are cured with chemotherapy; however, some (<5.0%) will die as a result of multi-drug resistance, underscoring the need for novel approaches in this group of patients. Although there are limited data due to its rarity, the treatment response with immunotherapy is high, ranging between 50-70%. Novel combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors with targeted therapies (including VEGFR-2 inhibitors) are under evaluation. PD-L1 inhibitors are considered a potential important opportunity for chemo-resistant patients, and to replace or de-escalate chemotherapy to avoid or minimize chemotherapy toxicity. In this review, the Rare Tumor Working Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer evaluated the current landscape and further perspective in the management of patients diagnosed with gestational choriocarcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Bogani
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Isabelle Ray-Coquard
- Centre Leon Berard, LYON CEDEX 08, France
- Hesper lab, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
| | - David Mutch
- Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jaime Prat
- Department of Pathology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Nicole Concin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics; Innsbruck Medical Univeristy, Innsbruck, Austria
| | | | | | - Takayuki Enomoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Belgium
| | - Kazuhiro Takehara
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Japan
| | | | | | - Masashi Takano
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Defense Medical College, Tokorozawa, Japan
| | - Satoru Sagae
- Gynecologic Oncology, Tokeidai Kinen Byoin, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Pauline Wimberger
- Gyncology and Obstetrics, Technische Universitat Dresden Medizinische Fakultat Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | - Yakir Segev
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel
| | - Se Ik Kim
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
| | - Jae-Weon Kim
- Obstetrics and gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
| | - Fernanda Herrera
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Departement doncologie CHUV-UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Mariani
- Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Rebecca A Brooks
- Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - David Tan
- National University Cancer Institute, Singapore
| | - Biagio Paolini
- Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Valentina Chiappa
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, IRCCS National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Medical Gynecologic Oncology Unit; University of Milan Bicocca; Milan; Italy, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Gynaecological Oncology, National Cancer Institute Napels, Naples, Italy
| | - Gianfranco Zannoni
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Bradley J Monk
- Virginia G Piper Cancer Center - Biltmore Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Bizzarri N, Querleu D, Dostálek L, van Lonkhuijzen LRCW, Giannarelli D, Lopez A, Salehi S, Ayhan A, Kim SH, Ortiz DI, Klat J, Landoni F, Pareja R, Manchanda R, Kosťun J, Ramirez PT, Meydanli MM, Odetto D, Laky R, Zapardiel I, Weinberger V, Dos Reis R, Pedone Anchora L, Amaro K, Akilli H, Abu-Rustum NR, Salcedo-Hernández RA, Javůrková V, Mom CH, Scambia G, Falconer H, Cibula D. Survival associated with extent of radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a subanalysis of the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229:428.e1-428.e12. [PMID: 37336255 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Revised: 06/11/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND International guidelines recommend tailoring the radicality of hysterectomy according to the known preoperative tumor characteristics in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess whether increased radicality had an effect on 5-year disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The secondary aims were 5-year overall survival and pattern of recurrence. STUDY DESIGN This was an international, multicenter, retrospective study from the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative cohort. Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1 and IIA1 who underwent open type B/C1/C2 radical hysterectomy according to Querleu-Morrow classification between January 2007 and December 2016, who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who had negative lymph nodes and free surgical margins at final histology, were included. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Patients were stratified according to pathologic tumor diameter. Propensity score match analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. RESULTS A total of 1257 patients were included. Of note, 883 patients (70.2%) underwent nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, and 374 patients (29.8%) underwent non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Baseline differences between the study groups were found for tumor stage and diameter (higher use of non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm or with vaginal involvement; P<.0001). The use of adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 27.3% vs 28.6%, respectively (P=.63). Five-year disease-free survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 90.1% (95% confidence interval, 87.9-92.2) vs 93.8% (95% confidence interval, 91.1-96.5), respectively (P=.047). Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was independently associated with better disease-free survival at multivariable analysis performed on the entire cohort (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.81; P=.004). Furthermore, 5-year overall survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 95.7% (95% confidence interval, 94.1-97.2) vs non-nerve-sparing 96.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.3-98.7), respectively (P=.78). In patients with a tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 94.7% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 96.2% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.22). In patients with tumors between 21 and 40 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 90.3% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 83.1% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.016) (no significant difference in the rate of adjuvant treatment in this subgroup, P=.47). This was confirmed after propensity match score analysis (balancing the 2 study groups). The pattern of recurrence in the propensity-matched population did not demonstrate any difference (P=.70). CONCLUSION For tumors ≤20 mm, no survival difference was found with more radical hysterectomy. For tumors between 21 and 40 mm, a more radical hysterectomy was associated with improved 5-year disease-free survival. No difference in the pattern of recurrence according to the extent of radicality was observed. Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was associated with better 5-year disease-free survival than nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy after propensity score match analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolò Bizzarri
- Unità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
| | - Denis Querleu
- Unità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Lukáš Dostálek
- First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology Center, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group), Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen
- Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Diana Giannarelli
- Biostatistics Unit, Scientific Directorate, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Aldo Lopez
- Department of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru
| | - Sahar Salehi
- Department of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ali Ayhan
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Sarah H Kim
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - David Isla Ortiz
- Gynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Jaroslav Klat
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Fabio Landoni
- IRCCS Fondazione San Gerardo - Università Milano Bicocca, Monza, Italy
| | - Rene Pareja
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, and Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Faculty of Public Health and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jan Kosťun
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | | | - Mehmet M Meydanli
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women's Health and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Diego Odetto
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Rene Laky
- Department of Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Ignacio Zapardiel
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
| | - Vit Weinberger
- Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
| | - Ricardo Dos Reis
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Luigi Pedone Anchora
- Unità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Karina Amaro
- Oncology Unit, Cayetano Heredia Hospital, Lima, Peru
| | - Huseyin Akilli
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baskent University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | | | - Veronika Javůrková
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Constantijne H Mom
- Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Unità Operativa Complessa Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Henrik Falconer
- Department of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - David Cibula
- First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology Center, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group), Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Navarro Santana B, Garcia-Torralba E, Viveros-Carreño D, Rodriguez J, Pareja R, Martin A, Forte S, Krause KJ, González-Martín JM, Ramirez PT. Complications of HIPEC for ovarian cancer surgery: evaluation over two time periods. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2023-004658. [PMID: 37669829 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004658] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/07/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Cytoreductive surgery in conjunction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is being explored in the upfront, interval, and recurrent setting in patients with ovarian cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the rate of complications associated with HIPEC in epithelial ovarian cancer surgery over two time periods. METHODS This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328928). A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Ovid/Medline, Ovid/Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2004 to April 2022. We included studies reporting on patients with advanced primary or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. We evaluated two different time periods: 2004-2013 and 2014-2022. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to produce an overall summary. Subgroup analyses were planned according to recruited period for each specific complication type. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS A total of 4928 patients were included from 69 studies for this systematic review; 19 published from 2004-2013, and 50 published from 2014-2022. No significant differences were found between the two time periods in terms of blood transfusions (33% vs 51%; p=0.46; I2=95%) overall gastrointestinal complications (15% vs 21%; p=0.36; I2=98%), infectious diseases (16% vs 13%; p=0.62; I2=93%), overall respiratory complications (12% vs 12%; p=0.88; I2=91%), overall urinary complications (6% vs 12%; p=0.06; I2=94%), or thromboembolic events (5% vs 3%; p=0.25; I2=63%). Also, no differences were found in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (89% vs 28%; p=0.06; I2=99%), reoperations (8% vs 7%; p=0.50; I2=37%), or deaths (3% vs 3%; p=0.77; I2=57%). CONCLUSIONS Our review showed that overall complications have not changed over time for patients undergoing HIPEC in the setting of primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. There was no decrease in the rates of ICU admissions, reoperations, or deaths.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - David Viveros-Carreño
- Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia and Centro de Tratamiento e Investigación sobre Cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo-CTIC, Bogotá, Colombia
| | | | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
| | - Alicia Martin
- Insular University Hospital of Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canarias, Spain
| | - Sara Forte
- Azienda USL Toscana centro, Prato, Italy
| | - Kate J Krause
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Research Medical Library, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - J M González-Martín
- Insular University Hospital of Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canarias, Spain
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Mauro J, Viveros-Carreño D, Vizzielli G, De Ponti E, Fanfani F, Ramirez PT, Buda A. Survival after sentinel node biopsy alone in early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1370-1375. [PMID: 37586759 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004692] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the oncologic outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone as part of surgical management in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS A systematic search of the literature was performed following the PRISMA checklist. MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched from June 1991 to May 2023. Studies of women with early-stage cervical cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA-IIA, of any age or histology, and articles only in English language were included. After the removal of duplicates, only articles including sentinel node mapping alone compared with full pelvic lymphadenectomy were retained. RESULTS Four studies with a total of 2226 patients were included. Among these, 354 (15.9%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy alone. A total of 2210 (99.2%) patients had FIGO 2009 stage I disease and 1514 (68%) patients had squamous cell carcinoma. Median body mass index was 25.5 kg/m2 (range 23.5-27). Lymph vascular space invasion was present in 633 patients (34%) who underwent full lymphadenectomy and in 78 patients (22%) who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone. The results of the survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the 3-year progression-free survival rates of patients who underwent either sentinel biopsy alone or lymphadenectomy. Three-year recurrence-free survival was 93.1% (95% CI 28.3% to 64.7%) for patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy alone and 92.5% (95% CI 39.0% to 53.4%) for patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy and lymphadenectomy (p=0.773). CONCLUSIONS In patients with early-stage cervical cancer, performing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone compared with pelvic lymphadenectomy does not appear to independently confer a higher risk or recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica Mauro
- Gynecologic Oncology, Ospedale Michele e Pietro Ferrero, Verduno, Italy
- University of Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - David Viveros-Carreño
- Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia and Centro de Tratamiento e Investigación sobre Cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo - CTIC, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Giuseppe Vizzielli
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Udine, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Udine, Italy
| | - Elena De Ponti
- Department of Physical Medicine, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Francesco Fanfani
- Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alessandro Buda
- Gynecologic Oncology, Ospedale Michele e Pietro Ferrero, Verduno, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Yates EM, Ramirez PT. Isolated nodal recurrence in endometrial cancer: not so common and very salvageable. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:1179-1180. [PMID: 37460219 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/09/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Elise Mann Yates
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Levin G, Harrison R, Ledermann J, Meyer R, Coleman RL, Ramirez PT. Evaluating open access publication and research impact in gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2023-004460. [PMID: 37220951 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004460] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether a citation advantage exists for open access (OA) publications in gynecologic oncology. METHOD A cross-sectional study of research and review articles published in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) and in Gynecologic Oncology during 1980-2022. Bibliometric measures were compared between OA publications and non-OA publications. The role of authors in low/middle-income countries was assessed. We analyzed article characteristics associated with a high citations per year (CPY) score. RESULTS Overall, 18 515 articles were included, of which 2398 (13.0%) articles were published OA. The rate of OA has increased since 2007. During 2018-2022, the average proportion of articles published OA was 34.0% (range 28.5%-41.4%). OA articles had higher CPY (median (IQR), 3.0 (1.5-5.3) vs 1.3 (0.6-2.7), p<0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor; IJGC - r(23)=0.90, p<0.001, Gynecologic Oncology - r(23)=0.89, p<0.001. Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common among OA articles than among non-OA articles (5.5% vs 10.7%, p<0.001). Articles by authors from low/middle-income countries were less common in the high CPY group than for articles without a high CPY score (8.0% vs 10.2%, p=0.003). The following article characteristics were found to be independently associated with a high CPY: publication after 2007, (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=4.9, 95% CI 4.3 to 5.7), research funding reported (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), and being published OA (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7). Articles written by authors in Central/South America or Asia had lower odds of having high CPY (Central/South America, aOR=0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8; Asia, aOR=0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.7). CONCLUSION OA articles have a higher CPY, with a strong positive correlation between OA proportion and impact factor. OA publishing has increased since 2007, but articles written by authors in low/middle-income countries are under-represented among OA publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Levin
- Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- The Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Ross Harrison
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | | - Raanan Meyer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
- Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Robert L Coleman
- Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI), HCA Healthcare, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Viveros-Carreño D, Vieira-Serna S, Grillo-Ardila CF, Rodriguez J, Mora-Soto N, Jhingran A, Ramirez PT, Pareja R. Definitive pelvic radiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed stage IVB cervical cancer: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2023-004465. [PMID: 37192760 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/18/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review was to assess the oncologic outcomes of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IVB cervical cancer receiving definitive pelvic radiotherapy compared with systemic chemotherapy (with or without palliative pelvic radiotherapy). METHODS This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022333433). A systematic literature review was conducted following the MOOSE checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until August 2022. The inclusion criteria were patients with metastatic FIGO 2018 stage IVB cervical cancer, a histologic subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma that received definitive pelvic radiotherapy (≥45 Gy) as part of management compared with systemic chemotherapy with or without palliative (30 Gy) pelvic radiotherapy. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies with two arms of comparison were considered. RESULTS The search identified 4653 articles; 26 studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and 8 met the selection criteria. In total, 2424 patients were included. There were 1357 and 1067 patients in the definitive radiotherapy and chemotherapy groups, respectively. All included studies were retrospective cohort studies, and two were database population studies. The median overall survival reported in seven studies for the definitive radiotherapy arm versus systemic chemotherapy groups were 63.7 months versus 18.4 months (p<0.01), 14 months versus 16 months (p value not reported), 17.6 months versus 10.6 months (p<0.01), 32 months versus 24 months (p<0.01), 17.3 months versus 10 months (p<0.01), and 41.6 months versus 17.6 months (p<0.01), and not reached versus 19 months (p=0.13) respectively, favoring the groups that received definitive pelvic radiotherapy. The high clinical heterogeneity precluded the performance of meta-analysis, and all studies were at serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS Definitive pelvic radiotherapy as part of treatment in patients with stage IVB cervical cancer may improve oncologic outcomes compared with systemic chemotherapy (with or without palliative radiotherapy); however, this is based on low-quality data. Prospective evaluation would be ideal before the adoption of this intervention in standard clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Viveros-Carreño
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Santiago Vieira-Serna
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
| | | | - Juliana Rodriguez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Nathalia Mora-Soto
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogota, Colombia
| | - Anuja Jhingran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rene Pareja
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Astorga, Medellin, Colombia
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Taylor JS, Iniesta MD, Zorrilla-Vaca A, Cain KE, Lasala JD, Mena GE, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT. Rate of venous thromboembolism on an enhanced recovery program after gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023:S0002-9378(23)00283-1. [PMID: 37150284 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.04.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2022] [Revised: 04/15/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism is a life-threatening complication of surgery. An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program is a multimodal care pathway that facilitates faster recovery from surgery. The rate of venous thromboembolism after gynecologic surgery on an ERAS program is unknown. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to evaluate the rate of venous thromboembolism within 30 days of gynecologic surgery on an ERAS pathway performed at a cancer center. STUDY DESIGN Data were collected prospectively on ERAS pathway gynecologic patients undergoing open (November 3, 2014 -March 31, 2021) and minimally invasive surgery (February 1, 2017 -March 31, 2021). Care was delivered at a tertiary cancer care center located in a large urban area. Patients undergoing emergency surgery or multi-specialty surgeries were excluded. Open surgery patients were to receive heparin prophylaxis prior to surgery, sequential compression devices during surgery and admission, and low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis during admission. If diagnosed with malignancy, patients were to receive extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for 28 days after surgery. For minimally invasive surgery, patients received only sequential compression devices during surgery and no heparin prophylaxis before or after surgery. Venous thromboembolism events were included if detected on imaging obtained for symptoms or for other indications. Descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 3,329 patients, 1,519 (45.6%) patients underwent laparotomy, 1,452 (43.6%) laparoscopy, and 358 (10.8%) robotic surgery. The incidence of venous thromboembolism was 0.6% (N=21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4%-0.9%) overall, 1.1% (N=16, 95% CI 0.6%-1.7%) in the open approach and 0.3% (N=5, 95% CI 0.3%-0.6%) in the minimally invasive approach (p=0.02). The incidence of venous thromboembolism among the 1,999 patients with malignancy was 0.9% overall (N=18, 95%CI 0.5%-1.4%), 1.4% (N=15, 95% CI 0.7%-2.2%) in the open approach and 0.3% (N=3, 95% CI 0.1%-0.9%) in the minimally invasive approach. The incidence of venous thromboembolism among the 1,165 patients with benign disease was 0.3% (N=3, 95% CI 0.1%-0.7%) overall, 0.3% (N=1, 95% CI 0.0%-1.7%) in the open approach and 0.2% (N=2, 95% CI 0.0%-0.9%) in the minimally invasive approach. CONCLUSIONS Venous thromboembolism rate among patients undergoing laparotomy and minimally invasive surgery on an ERAS pathway was <1%. This establishes a benchmark for the rate of venous thromboembolism following gynecologic surgery on an ERAS pathway performed at a cancer center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jolyn S Taylor
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andres Zorrilla-Vaca
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Katherine E Cain
- Department of Pharmacy Clinical Programs, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Javier D Lasala
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel E Mena
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Nelson G, Fotopoulou C, Taylor J, Glaser G, Bakkum-Gamez J, Meyer LA, Stone R, Mena G, Elias KM, Altman AD, Bisch SP, Ramirez PT, Dowdy SC. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society guidelines for gynecologic oncology: Addressing implementation challenges - 2023 update. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 173:58-67. [PMID: 37086524 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 04/11/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite evidence supporting its use, many Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations remain poorly adhered to and barriers to ERAS implementation persist. In this second updated ERAS® Society guideline, a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic oncology surgery is presented, with a specific emphasis on implementation challenges. METHODS Based on the gaps identified by clinician stakeholder groups, nine implementation challenge topics were prioritized for review. A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed (2018-2023). Studies on each topic were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded by an international panel according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS All recommendations on ERAS implementation challenge topics are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly. CONCLUSIONS The updated evidence base and recommendations for stakeholder derived ERAS implementation challenges in gynecologic oncology are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Nelson
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
| | - C Fotopoulou
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - J Taylor
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - G Glaser
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - J Bakkum-Gamez
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - L A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - R Stone
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - G Mena
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - K M Elias
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - A D Altman
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - S P Bisch
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - P T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | - S C Dowdy
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Ramirez PT. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP updated guidelines in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:667-668. [PMID: 37055170 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/15/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Levin G, Pareja R, Harrison R, Ramirez PT, Meyer R. Association of literature metrics in gynecologic oncology with country classification by income level. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023:ijgc-2023-004380. [DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/03/2023] Open
Abstract
ObjectiveBibliometric literature in gynecologic oncology is limited. We aimed to study the association between the level of income of the country of authorship and citation metrics.MethodsA retrospective study including all articles and reviews published during 1977–2022 in theInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer(IJGC) andGynecologic Oncologyjournals. Country of origin was defined as the corresponding author’s address. We classified articles into groups by level of income of the country of origin, as defined by the World Bank. The primary outcome measure was the median number of citations per year.ResultsA total of 9835 articles were included in the analysis (IJGCn=3786 (38.5%),Gynecologic Oncologyn=6049 (61.5%)). There were 8587 (87.3%) publications from high income countries, 1134 (11.5%) from upper-middle income countries, and 114 (1.2%) from lower-middle income countries. There were no publications from countries of low income. Most publications originated in the United States with 4089 (41.6%), followed by China (n=730, 7.4%), Italy (n=533, 5.4%), Canada (n=467, 4.7%), and Japan (n=461, 4.7%). Over the most recent 5 years there was a decrease in the representation of upper-middle income countries and lower-middle income countries; 16.3% (91/557) in 2018 versus 9.1% (38/417) in 2022 (p=0.005). In a multivariable regression analysis that included year of publication, open access publication model, study being supported by funding, publishing journal, review article, and level of income, all factors were associated with high citation per year score except the income classification of the article’s country of origin (adjusted OR 1.59–1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.30).ConclusionHigh income countries have a disproportionate representation in gynecologic oncology publications. After adjusting for confounders, the country’s level of income was not independently associated with a high citation per year score. This implies that the number of citations per year is not compromised by the country’s level of income.
Collapse
|
28
|
Madariaga A, Sanchez-Bayona R, Herrera FG, Ramirez PT, González Martín A. Outcomes and endpoints of relevance in gynecologic cancer clinical trials. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:323-332. [PMID: 36878559 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Drug development is paramount to improve outcomes in patients with gynecologic cancers. A randomized clinical trial should measure whether a clinically relevant improvement is detected with the new intervention compared with the standard of care, using reproductible and appropriate endpoints. Clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life (QoL) are the gold standards to measure benefit of new therapeutic strategies. Alternative endpoints, such as progression-free survival, provide an earlier measure of the effect of the new therapeutic drug, and are not confounded by the effect of subsequent lines of therapy. Yet, its surrogacy with improved overall survival or QoL is unclear in gynecologic malignancies. Of relevance to studies assessing maintenance strategies are other time-to-event endpoints, such as progression-free survival two and time to second subsequent treatment, which provide valuable information on the disease control in the longer term. Translational and biomarker studies are increasingly being incorporated into gynecologic oncology clinical trials, as they may allow understanding of the biology of the disease, resistance mechanisms, and enable a better selection of patients who might benefit from the new therapeutic strategy. Globally, the endpoint selection of a clinical trial will differ according to the type of study, population, disease setting, and type of therapeutic strategy. This review provides an overview of primary and secondary endpoint selection of relevance for gynecologic oncology clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ainhoa Madariaga
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Fernanda G Herrera
- Department of Oncology, Radiation Oncology Service, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois CHUV-UNIL, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and AGORA Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Vranes C, Zhao H, Noer MC, Fu S, Sun CC, Harrison R, Ramirez PT, Høgdall CK, Giordano SH, Meyer LA. Secondary validation of an ovarian cancer-specific comorbidity index in a US population. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:749-754. [PMID: 36863760 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The Ovarian Cancer Comorbidity Index (OCCI) is an age-specific index developed and previously found to be more predictive of overall and cancer-specific survival than the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The objective was to perform secondary validation of the OCCI in a US population. METHODS A cohort of ovarian cancer patients undergoing primary or interval cytoreductive surgery from January 2005 to January 2012 was identified in SEER-Medicare. OCCI scores were calculated with the regression coefficients determined from the original developmental cohort for five comorbidities. Cox regression analyses were used to calculate associations between the OCCI risk groups and 5-year overall survival and 5-year cancer-specific survival in comparison to the CCI. RESULTS A total of 5052 patients were included. Median age was 74 (range 66-82) years. 47% (n=2375) had stage III and 24% (n=1197) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. 67% had a serous histology subtype (n=3403). All patients were categorized as moderate (48.4%) or high risk (51.6%). The prevalence of the five predictive comorbidities were: coronary artery disease 3.7%, hypertension 67.5%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 16.7%, diabetes 21.8%, and dementia 1.2%. Controlling for histology, grade, and age-stratification, worse overall survival was associated with both a higher OCCI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46 to 1.69) and CCI (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32). Cancer-specific survival was associated with the OCCI (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.44) but was not associated with the CCI (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS This internationally developed comorbidity score for ovarian cancer patients is predictive for both overall and cancer-specific survival in a US population. CCI was not predictive for cancer-specific survival. This score may have research applications when utilizing large administrative datasets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsey Vranes
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Hui Zhao
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Shuangshuang Fu
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Charlotte C Sun
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ross Harrison
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Claus Kim Høgdall
- Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Sharon H Giordano
- Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Jorgensen K, Melamed A, Wu CF, Nitecki R, Pareja R, Fagotti A, Schorge JO, Ramirez PT, Rauh-Hain JA. Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 172:130-137. [PMID: 36977622 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.01.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 01/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Assess outcomes of interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with laparotomy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS Patients diagnosed with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer between 2013 and 2018 who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IDS were identified in the National Cancer Database. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were 5-year survival, 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality, extent of surgery, residual disease, hospitalization duration, surgical conversions, and unplanned readmissions. Propensity score matching was used to compare MIS and laparotomy for IDS. Association of treatment approach with overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for effect of unmeasured confounders. RESULTS A total of 7897 patients met inclusion criteria; 2021 (25.6%) underwent MIS. Percentage undergoing MIS increased from 20.3%-29.0% over the study period. After propensity score matching, median overall survival was 46.7 months in the MIS group versus 41.0 months in the laparotomy group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95%CI 0.79-0.94)]. Five-year survival probability was higher in MIS versus laparotomy (38.3% vs 34.8%, p < 0.01). There was lower 30- and 90-day mortality (0.3% vs 0.7% [p = 0.04] and 1.4% vs 2.5% [p = 0.01], respectively), shorter length of stay (median 3 vs 5 days, p < 0.01), lower residual disease (23.9% vs 26.7%, p < 0.01), and lower additional cytoreductive procedures (59.3% vs 70.8%, p < 0.01) in MIS compared to laparotomy, with similar rates of unplanned readmission (2.7% vs 3.1%, p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS Patients who undergo IDS by MIS have similar overall survival and decreased morbidity compared with laparotomy.
Collapse
|
31
|
Levin G, Harrison R, Meyer R, Ramirez PT. Impact of podcasting on novel and conventional measures of academic impact. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:183-189. [PMID: 36631152 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is an alternative metric for estimating the impact of academic publications. We studied the association of using podcasting to highlight publications about gynecological cancer with AAS and citation scores. METHODS Articles that were featured in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) podcast series January 2019 to September 2022 were matched 1:1 to control articles by the journal in which the article was published, study topic and design, single/multicenter data, and year of publication. Podcast articles were compared with matched-controls by citation metrics and altmetric scores. RESULTS A total of 99 podcasted articles published in 16 journals were matched. Median AAS was significantly higher in the podcast group than the matched-control group (22 (14-42) vs 5 (1-17), p<0.001). In a multivariable regression analysis, podcasting was the only factor associated with a high AAS (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.6, 95% CI 3.8 to 19.7). In the podcast group, the median number of citations per year was higher than matched-control studies (5.5 (3.0-12.7) vs 4.5 (2.0-9.5), p=0.047). The only article characteristics that were independently associated with ≥12 citations per year were if the publication described a randomized controlled trial (aOR 4.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.6) or featured cervical carcinoma as the subject focus (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.5). Compared with all articles published in IJGC during the study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year (5 (2-10) vs 1 (0-2.5), p<0.001). CONCLUSION When compared with matched-controls, podcasting an article is associated with a higher AAS but is not associated with generating a high (≥12) number of citations per year. When compared with all articles published in the same journal during the same study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel Levin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel .,Lady Davis Institute for Cancer Research, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Ross Harrison
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Raanan Meyer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.,Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Ramirez PT, Pareja R. Laparoscopic secondary cytoreductive surgery: let's not make the same assumptions. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:145-146. [PMID: 36639194 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia, Medellin, Colombia
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Wang XS, Ramirez PT, Shi Q, Kamal M, Garcia-Gonzalez A, Iniesta MD, Cleeland CS, Meyer LA. Patient-reported symptoms at discharge and risk of complications after gynecologic surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:271-277. [PMID: 36600503 PMCID: PMC10009896 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Current gaps in knowledge limit clinicians from fully implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine post-operative care. METHODS This prospective study assessed symptoms via the gynecologic module of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-PeriOp-GYN) in patients who underwent open laparotomy. RESULTS At discharge, patient-reported moderate to severe (≥4 on a 0-10 scale) abdominal bloating or abdominal cramping, combined with length of stay of ≥4 days, were found to be associated with a higher risk of 30-day post-operative grade II-IV complications by the Clavien-Dindo system (all p values <0.01). Also, length of stay of ≥4 days and moderate to severe urinary urgency at discharge were found to be associated with the need for re-admission (all p values <0.01). CONCLUSION This study defined the clinically meaningful symptoms that related to the risk of developing important complications after discharge from major open gynecological surgery.These findings support the integration of assessment of patient-reported outcomes into patient-centered post-operative care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Shelley Wang
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Qiuling Shi
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Mona Kamal
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Charles S Cleeland
- Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Bogani G, Ray-Coquard I, Concin N, Ngoi NYL, Morice P, Caruso G, Enomoto T, Takehara K, Denys H, Lorusso D, Coleman R, Vaughan MM, Takano M, Provencher DM, Sagae S, Wimberger P, Póka R, Segev Y, Kim SI, Kim JW, Candido Dos Reis FJ, Ramirez PT, Mariani A, Leitao M, Makker V, Abu-Rustum NR, Vergote I, Zannoni G, Tan D, McCormack M, Paolini B, Bini M, Raspagliesi F, Benedetti Panici P, Di Donato V, Muzii L, Colombo N, Pignata S, Scambia G, Monk BJ. Endometrial carcinosarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:147-174. [PMID: 36585027 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Endometrial carcinosarcoma is a rare and aggressive high-grade endometrial carcinoma with secondary sarcomatous trans-differentiation (conversion theory). The clinical presentation and diagnostic work-up roughly align with those of the more common endometrioid counterpart, although endometrial carcinosarcoma is more frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. Endometrial carcinosarcoma is not a single entity but encompasses different histological subtypes, depending on the type of carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. The majority of endometrial carcinosarcomas are characterized by p53 abnormalities. The proportion of POLE and microsatellite instablity-high (MSI-H) is directly related to the epithelial component, being approximately 25% and 3% in endometrioid and non-endometrioid components.The management of non-metastatic disease is based on a multimodal approach with optimal surgery followed by (concomitant or sequential) chemotherapy and radiotherapy, even for early stages. Palliative chemotherapy is recommended in the metastatic or recurrent setting, with carboplatin/paclitaxel doublet being the first-line regimen. Although the introduction of immunotherapy plus/minus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor shifted the paradigm of treatment of patients with recurrent endometrial cancer, patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma were excluded from most studies evaluating single-agent immunotherapy or the combination. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the use of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in endometrial cancer (all histotypes) after progression on chemotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy in MSI-H cancers. In the era of precision medicine, emerging knowledge on molecular endometrial carcinosarcoma is opening new promising therapeutic options for more personalized treatment. The present review outlines state-of-the-art knowledge and future directions for patients with endometrial carcinosarcoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giorgio Bogani
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | | | - Nicole Concin
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics; Innsbruck Medical Univeristy, Innsbruck, Austria
| | | | - Philippe Morice
- Department of Surgery, Institut Gustave RoussT, Villejuif, France
| | - Giuseppe Caruso
- Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Takayuki Enomoto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Belgium
| | - Kazuhiro Takehara
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Japan
| | - Hannelore Denys
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Ghent, Gent, Belgium
| | | | - Robert Coleman
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michelle M Vaughan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Canterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology Service, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Masashi Takano
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Defense Medical College, Tokorozawa, Medical, Japan
| | | | | | - Pauline Wimberger
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universitat Dresden Medizinische Fakultat Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | | | - Yakir Segev
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Hospital, Haifa, Israel
| | - Se Ik Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Weon Kim
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | | | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Andrea Mariani
- Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Mario Leitao
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Vicky Makker
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ignace Vergote
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Gynecologic Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gianfranco Zannoni
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - David Tan
- National University Cancer Institute, Singapore
| | - Mary McCormack
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Biagio Paolini
- Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| | - Marta Bini
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
| | | | | | - Violante Di Donato
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Sapienza of Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Ludovico Muzii
- Department of Maternal, Infantile, and Urological Sciences, Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, Italy
| | - Nicoletta Colombo
- Medical Gynecologic Oncology Unit; University of Milan Bicocca; Milan; Italy, European Institute of Oncology, Milano, Italy
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, National Cancer Institute Napels, Naples, Italy
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Bradley J Monk
- HonorHealth, University of Arizona, Creighton University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Martinez A, Lecuru F, Bizzarri N, Chargari C, Ducassou A, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Scambia G, Cibula D, Díaz-Feijoo B, Gil Moreno A, Angeles MA, Muallem MZ, Kohler C, Luyckx M, Kridelka F, Rychlik A, Gerestein KG, Heinzelmann V, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Ferron G, Betrian S, Filleron T, Fotopoulou C, Querleu D. PARa-aOrtic LymphAdenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer (PAROLA trial): a GINECO, ENGOT, and GCIG study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:293-298. [PMID: 36717163 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) fails to detect approximately 25% of aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with PET/CT stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. Surgical staging could lead to treatment modification and to improved para-aortic and distant control. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES To demonstrate if chemoradiation with tailored external beam radiation field based on surgical staging and pathologic examination of the para-aortic lymph node is associated with improved 3-year disease-free survival compared with patients staged with PET/CT staging only. STUDY HYPOTHESIS Surgical staging followed by tailored chemoradiation will improve disease-free survival while avoiding unnecessary prophylactic extended-field chemoradiation in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. TRIAL DESIGN This is an international multicenter, randomized, phase III study. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 between PET/CT staging followed by chemoradiation (control arm), or surgical staging followed by tailored chemo-radiation (experimental arm). Randomization will be stratified by tumor stage according to TNM classification, center, and adjuvant treatment. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA Main inclusion criteria are histologically proven PET/CT FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. Main exclusion criteria include unequivocal positive common iliac or para-aortic lymph node at pre-therapeutic imaging PET/CT. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS The primary endpoint is disease-free survival defined as the time from randomization until first relapse (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. SAMPLE SIZE 510 eligible patients ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The estimated date for completing accrual will be Q2 2027. The estimated date for presenting results will be Q4 2030. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05581121.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alejandra Martinez
- Surgical Oncology Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
- Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM UMR 1037, Toulouse, France
| | - Fabrice Lecuru
- Breast, Gynecology and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Institute Curie, Paris, France
| | - Nicolò Bizzarri
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy
| | - Cyrus Chargari
- Radiotherapy Department, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - Anne Ducassou
- Radiotherapy Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, France, Toulouse, France
| | - Anna Fagotti
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Fanfani
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy
| | - David Cibula
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Berta Díaz-Feijoo
- Institute Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institutd'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Antonio Gil Moreno
- Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Martina Aida Angeles
- Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mustafa Zelal Muallem
- Department of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Christhardt Kohler
- Department of Special Operative and Oncologic Gynecology, Asklepios-Clinic Hamburg-Altona, Asklepios Hospital Group, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Mathieu Luyckx
- Department of Gynecology-Andrology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Frederic Kridelka
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium
| | - Agnieszka Rychlik
- Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - K G Gerestein
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Viola Heinzelmann
- Obstetric and Gynaecology, University of Basel Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gwenael Ferron
- Surgical Oncology Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Sarah Betrian
- Medical Oncology Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Thomas Filleron
- Biostatistics & Health Data Science Unit, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Christina Fotopoulou
- Gynaecologic Oncology, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, London, London, UK
| | - Denis Querleu
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Ramirez PT, Pareja R, Viveros-Carreño D, Frumovitz M. Open radical hysterectomy: The new standard of care in early-stage cervical cancer. BJOG 2023. [PMID: 36681892 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rene Pareja
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.,Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Astorga Clínica de Oncología, Medellín, Colombia
| | - David Viveros-Carreño
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.,Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Clínica Universitaria Colombia and Centro de tratamiento e investigación sobre el cáncer Luis Carlos Sarmiento Angulo, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Son J, Lin HY, Fu S, Biter AB, Dumbrava EE, Karp DD, Naing A, Pant S, Piha-Paul SA, Rodon J, Subbiah V, Tsimberidou AM, Yap TA, Frumovitz MM, Jazaeri AA, Ramirez PT, Westin SN, Yuan Y, Meric-Bernstam F, Hong DS. Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer. J Immunother Precis Oncol 2023; 6:10-18. [PMID: 36751659 PMCID: PMC9888522 DOI: 10.36401/jipo-22-23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Revised: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Introduction We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials. Methods Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed. Results We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/μL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/μL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases. Conclusion Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Son
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Heather Y. Lin
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Siqing Fu
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amadeo B. Biter
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ecaterina E. Dumbrava
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Daniel D. Karp
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Aung Naing
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shubham Pant
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sarina A. Piha-Paul
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jordi Rodon
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Vivek Subbiah
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Apostolia M. Tsimberidou
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy A. Yap
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael M. Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Amir A. Jazaeri
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T. Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Shannon N. Westin
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ying Yuan
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Funda Meric-Bernstam
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David S. Hong
- Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Bizzarri N, Dostálek L, van Lonkhuijzen LRCW, Giannarelli D, Lopez A, Falconer H, Querleu D, Ayhan A, Kim SH, Ortiz DI, Klat J, Landoni F, Rodriguez J, Manchanda R, Kosťun J, Ramirez PT, Meydanli MM, Odetto D, Laky R, Zapardiel I, Weinberger V, Reis RD, Anchora LP, Amaro K, Salehi S, Akilli H, Abu-Rustum NR, Salcedo-Hernández RA, Javůrková V, Mom CH, Scambia G, Cibula D. Association of Hospital Surgical Volume With Survival in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Treated With Radical Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141:207-214. [PMID: 36701621 PMCID: PMC10445691 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of number of radical hysterectomies performed per year in each center with disease-free survival and overall survival. METHODS We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients previously included in the Surveillance in Cervical Cancer collaborative studies. Individuals with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB1-IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and had negative lymph nodes at final histology were included. Patients were treated at referral centers for gynecologic oncology according to updated national and international guidelines. Optimal cutoffs for surgical volume were identified using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model, with disease-free survival as the outcome and defined as the value that minimizes the P-value of the split in groups in terms of disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was used to create statistically similar cohorts at baseline. RESULTS A total of 2,157 patients were initially included. The two most significant cutoffs for surgical volume were identified at seven and 17 surgical procedures, dividing the entire cohort into low-volume, middle-volume, and high-volume centers. After propensity score matching, 1,238 patients were analyzed-619 (50.0%) in the high-volume group, 523 (42.2%) in the middle-volume group, and 96 (7.8%) in the low-volume group. Patients who underwent surgery in higher-volume institutions had progressively better 5-year disease-free survival than those who underwent surgery in lower-volume centers (92.3% vs 88.9% vs 83.8%, P=.029). No difference was noted in 5-year overall survival (95.9% vs 97.2% vs 95.2%, P=.70). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that FIGO stage greater than IB1, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, grade greater than 1, tumor diameter greater than 20 mm, minimally invasive surgical approach, nonsquamous cell carcinoma histology, and lower-volume centers represented independent risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION Surgical volume of centers represented an independent prognostic factor affecting disease-free survival. Increasing number of radical hysterectomies performed in each center every year was associated with improved disease-free survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Lukáš Dostálek
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen
- Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Diana Giannarelli
- Biostatistics Unit, Scientific Directorate, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Aldo Lopez
- Department of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru
| | - Henrik Falconer
- Department of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Denis Querleu
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Ali Ayhan
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Sarah H Kim
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
| | - David Isla Ortiz
- Gynecology Oncology Center, National Institute of Cancerology Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Jaroslav Klat
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Fabio Landoni
- University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Surgical Unit, ASST-Monza, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy
| | - Juliana Rodriguez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, & Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Jan Kosťun
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Mehmet M Meydanli
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Diego Odetto
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Rene Laky
- Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
| | - Ignacio Zapardiel
- Gynecologic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital - IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
| | - Vit Weinberger
- University Hospital Brno, Medical Faculty of Masaryk University, Czech
| | - Ricardo Dos Reis
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Luigi Pedone Anchora
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Karina Amaro
- Department of Gynecological Surgery, National Institute of Neoplastic Diseases, Lima, Peru
| | - Sahar Salehi
- Department of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Huseyin Akilli
- Baskent University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Ankara, Turkey
| | | | | | - Veronika Javůrková
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Constantijne H Mom
- Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la Salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - David Cibula
- Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital (Central and Eastern European Gynecologic Oncology Group, CEEGOG), Prague, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Angeles MA, Boria F, Shushkevich AB, Bizzarri N, Theofanakis C, Schivardi G, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, Strojna AN, Bilir E, Mahner S, Gultekin M, Cibula D, Rodolakis A, Lorusso D, Mirza MR, Fagotti A, Ledermann J, Fotopoulou C, Ramirez PT. Interviews conducted at the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology 2022 Congress: a ENYGO-IJGC Fellows initiative. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 33:ijgc-2022-004160. [PMID: 36600507 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Martina Aida Angeles
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole Departement de Chirurgie, Toulouse, France
| | - Felix Boria
- Gynecologic Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alexander B Shushkevich
- Institute of Biology and Medicine, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kiiv, Ukraine
| | - Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Rome, Italy
| | - Charalampos Theofanakis
- Unit of Gynaecologic Oncology, Alexandra Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Gabriella Schivardi
- Department of Gynecology, European Institute of Oncology, IEO, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Aleksandra Natalia Strojna
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Essen, Germany
| | - Esra Bilir
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
- Department of Global Health, Koc University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Sven Mahner
- AGO and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Murat Gultekin
- Cancer Control Department, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
| | - David Cibula
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexandros Rodolakis
- Unit of Gynaecologic Oncology, Alexandra Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Domenica Lorusso
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Rome, Italy
| | - Mansoor Raza Mirza
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet; Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Anna Fagotti
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Christina Fotopoulou
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, London, UK
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Gaba F, Ash K, Blyuss O, Bizzarri N, Kamfwa P, Ramirez PT, Kotsopoulos IC, Chandrasekaran D, Gomes N, Butler J, Nobbenhuis M, Ind T, Heath O, Barton D, Jeyarajah A, Brockbank E, Lawrence A, Dilley J, Manchanda R, Phadnis S, Soar GO. Patient outcomes following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: protocol for a multicenter, international, cohort study (Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1606-1610. [PMID: 36379595 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Global Gynecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (GO SOAR) has developed a network of gynecological oncology surgeons, surgical departments, and other interested parties that have the long-term ability to collaborate on outcome studies. Presented is the protocol for the GO SOAR2 study. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES To compare survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery, between delayed cytoreductive surgery and no surgery (chemotherapy alone); and international variations in access to cytoreductive surgery for women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. STUDY HYPOTHESES There is no difference in survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery; there is poorer survival with no surgery compared with delayed cytoreductive surgery; and there are international disparities in prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery in women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer. TRIAL DESIGN International, multicenter, mixed-methods cohort study. Participating centers, will review medical charts/electronic records of patients who had been consecutively diagnosed with stage III-IV ovarian cancer between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2021. Qualitative interviews will be conducted to identify factors determining international variations in prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA Inclusion criteria include women with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer, undergoing interval (after 3-4 cycles of chemotherapy) or delayed (≥5 cycles of chemotherapy) cytoreductive surgeries or no cytoreductive surgery (≥5 cycles of chemotherapy alone). PRIMARY ENDPOINTS Overall survival (defined from date of diagnosis to date of death); progression-free survival (defined from date of diagnosis to date of first recurrence); facilitator/barriers to prevalent practice and access to cytoreductive surgery. SAMPLE SIZE In order to determine whether there is a difference in survival following interval and delayed cytoreductive surgery and no surgery, data will be abstracted from 1000 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS It is estimated that recruitment will be completed by 2023, and results published by 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT05523804.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faiza Gaba
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK .,Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Karen Ash
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, London, UK
| | - Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Paul Kamfwa
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Cancer Diseases Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ioannis C Kotsopoulos
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Nana Gomes
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - John Butler
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Marielle Nobbenhuis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Thomas Ind
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Owen Heath
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Desmond Barton
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arjun Jeyarajah
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Elly Brockbank
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Alexandra Lawrence
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - James Dilley
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.,Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, London, UK
| | - Saurabh Phadnis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - G O Soar
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Strojna AN, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, Angeles MA, Bizzarri N, van Ramshorst GH, Theofanakis C, Bilir E, Razumova Z, Nikolova T, Selcuk I, Wan YLL, Zalewski K, Lanner M, Pletnev A, Pareja R, Fotopoulou C, Kehoe S, Bąk J, Ramirez PT. ENYGO-IJGC scientific writing and publication course: 2021 meeting summary. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1599-1605. [PMID: 36418053 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003868] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra Natalia Strojna
- Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Evangelische Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Kliniken Essen-Mitte Evangelische Huyssens-Stiftung/Knappschaft GmbH Klinik fur Gynakologie & Gynakologische Onkologie, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
| | | | - Martina Aida Angeles
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Nicolò Bizzarri
- UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e della Salute Pubblica, Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Charlampos Theofanakis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, General Hospital of Athens Alexandra, Athens, Attica, Greece
| | - Esra Bilir
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.,Department of Global Health, Koc University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Zoia Razumova
- Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Tanja Nikolova
- Klinikum Mittelbaden, Academic Teaching Hospital of Heidelberg University, Baden-Baden, Germany
| | - Ilker Selcuk
- Gynecologic Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Cankaya, Turkey
| | - Yee-Loi Louise Wan
- Gynaecological Oncology, The University of Manchester Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, Manchester, UK
| | - Kamil Zalewski
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Holycross Cancer Center, Kielce, Holycross, Poland.,Department of Gynaecology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, Department of Gynaecology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Maximilian Lanner
- Department of Gynaecology, Private Hospital Villach, Villach, Steiermark, Austria
| | - Andrei Pletnev
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Góra, Poland
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia, Medellin, Colombia
| | | | - Sean Kehoe
- University of Birmingham College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Birmingham, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Janina Bąk
- https://janinadaily.com, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Ramirez PT. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: minimally invasive surgery is primarily to blame. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1505-1506. [PMID: 36368705 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-004111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Hayek J, Zorrilla-Vaca A, Meyer LA, Mena G, Lasala J, Iniesta MD, Suki T, Huepenbecker S, Cain K, Garcia-Lopez J, Ramirez PT. Patient outcomes and adherence to an enhanced recovery pathway for open gynecologic surgery: a 6-year single-center experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:ijgc-2022-003840. [PMID: 36202425 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate compliance with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for open gynecologic surgery at a tertiary center and the relationship between levels of compliance and peri-operative outcomes. METHODS This retrospective cohort study was conducted between November 2014 and December 2020. Two groups were defined based on compliance level (<80% vs ≥80%). The primary outcome was to analyze overall compliance since implementation of the ERAS protocol. The secondary endpoint was to assess the relationship between compliance and 30-day re-admission, length of stay, re-operation, opioid-free rates, and post-operative complications. We also assessed compliance with each ERAS element over three time periods (P1: 2014-2016, P2: 2017-2018, P3: 2019-2020), categorizing patients according to the date of surgery. Values were compared between P1 and P3. RESULTS A total of 1879 patients were included. Overall compliance over the period of 6 years was 74% (95% CI 71.9% to 78.2%). Mean overall compliance increased from 69.7% to 75.8% between P1 and P3. Compliance with ERAS ≥80% was associated with lower Clavien-Dindo complication rates (grades III (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93) and V (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60)), 30-day re-admission rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.88), and length of stay (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75). No difference in opioid consumption was seen. Pre-operatively, there was increased adherence to counseling by 50% (p=0.01), optimization by 21% (p=0.02), and carbohydrate loading by 74% (p=0.02). Intra-operatively, compliance with use of short-acting anesthetics increased by 37% (p=0.01) and avoidance of abdominal drainage increased by 7% (p=0.04). Use of goal-directed fluid therapy decreased by 16% (p=0.04). Post-operatively, there was increased compliance with avoiding salt and water overload (8%, p=0.02) and multimodal analgesia (5%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Over the time period of the study, overall compliance increased from 69.7% to 75.8%. Compliance (≥80%) with ERAS is associated with lower complication rates, fewer 30-day re-admissions, and shorter length of stay without impacting re-operation rates and post-operative opioid use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judy Hayek
- Gynecologic Oncology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
| | - Andres Zorrilla-Vaca
- Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gabriel Mena
- Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Javier Lasala
- Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tina Suki
- Gynecology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Sarah Huepenbecker
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Katherine Cain
- Division of Pharmacy, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Juan Garcia-Lopez
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Nasioudis D, Ramirez PT. 2022 Society of Gynecologic Oncology meeting report. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:ijgc-2022-003672. [PMID: 35878973 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003672] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2022 Annual Meeting was held between 18-21 March in Phoenix, Arizona. Multiple scientific plenary sessions covered key research concepts that included novel therapeutics, precision oncology, clinical trials, cancer care delivery, diversity, equity and inclusion, surgical trials and translational research. In the present report presentations that may impact clinical care are summarized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dimitrios Nasioudis
- Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Huepenbecker S, Santía MC, Harrison R, Dos Reis R, Pareja R, Iniesta MD, Meyer LA, Frumovitz M, Zorrilla-Vaca A, Ramirez PT. Impact of timing of urinary catheter removal on voiding dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:ijgc-2022-003654. [PMID: 35803608 PMCID: PMC9825680 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether the timing of postoperative urinary catheter removal is associated with voiding dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer within contemporary surgical practice. METHODS We performed an institutional retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent Piver type II-III open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion to stage IIA) between January 2006 and December 2019. We compared voiding dysfunction (inability to spontaneously void with a post-void residual <100 mL after catheter removal) and outcomes based on postoperative timing of urinary catheter removal using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS Among 234 patients, 86 (36.8%) underwent open surgery and 112 (47.9%) used enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. 29 (12.4%) patients had urinary catheter removal between 1-5 days postoperatively (group 1), 141 (60.3%) between 6-10 days (group 2), and 64 (27.3%) between 11-15 days (group 3). The overall rate of voiding dysfunction was 11.5%, with no difference between group 1 (17.2%), group 2 (11.3%), and group 3 (9.4%) (p=0.54). Group 1 had a significantly shorter time from surgery to spontaneous voiding (4 days, IQR 3-5 days) compared with group 2 (8 days, IQR 7-10 days) and group 3 (13 days, IQR 11-15 days) (p<0.01). There was no difference in hospital length of stay, urinary tract infection, or re-admission due to a genitourinary complication within 60 days of surgery based on timing of catheter removal. On multivariate analysis, the odds of voiding dysfunction did not differ by tumor size, type of hysterectomy, cancer stage, surgical approach, ERAS timeframe, or timing of catheter removal group. CONCLUSION There was no difference in voiding dysfunction or postoperative genitourinary complications based on timing of urinary catheter removal after radical hysterectomy. Early catheter removal should be considered in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Huepenbecker
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - María Clara Santía
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asociacion de Medicos y Profesionales del Hospital Aleman, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Ross Harrison
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ricardo Dos Reis
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital de Cancer de Barretos, Barretos, Sao Paolo, Brazil
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Bogota, Colombia
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica de Oncología Astorga, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Larissa A Meyer
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Michael Frumovitz
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Andres Zorrilla-Vaca
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Ramirez PT, Rauh-Hain JA, Melamed A, Pareja R. Surgical technique and surgeon volume: the pursuit of data-driven outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:ijgc-2022-003682. [PMID: 35725030 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alexander Melamed
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Medellin, Colombia
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Agusti N, Zorrilla Vaca A, Segarra-Vidal B, Iniesta MD, Mena G, Pareja R, Dos Reis R, Ramirez PT. Outcomes of open radical hysterectomy following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:480-485. [PMID: 35264404 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Open surgery has become the standard approach for radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion-IIA1). Our primary objective was to compare the length of stay in patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. METHODS This was a single center, retrospective, before-and-after intervention study including patients who underwent open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from January 2009 to December 2020. Two groups were identified based on the time of ERAS implementation: pre-ERAS group included patients who were operated on between January 2009 and October 2014; post-ERAS group included patients who underwent surgery between November 2014 and December 2020. RESULTS A total of 81 patients were included, of whom 29 patients were in the pre-ERAS group and 52 patients in the post-ERAS group. Both groups had similar clinical characteristics with no differences in terms of median age (42 years (interquartile range (IQR) 35-53) in pre-ERAS group vs 41 years (IQR 35-49) in post-ERAS group; p=0.47) and body mass index (26.1 kg/m2 (IQR 24.6-29.7) in pre-ERAS group vs 27.1 kg/m2 (IQR 23.5-33.5) in post-ERAS group; p=0.44). Patients in the post-ERAS group were discharged from the hospital earlier compared with those in the pre-ERAS group (median 3 days (IQR 2-3) vs 4 (IQR 3-4), p<0.01). The proportion of patients discharged within 48 hours was significantly higher in the post-ERAS group (47.3% vs 17.3%, p=0.013). There were no differences regarding either overall complications (44.8% pre-ERAS vs 38.5% post-ERAS; p=0.57) or readmission rates within 30 days (20.7% pre-ERAS group vs 17.3% ERAS group; p=0.40). Adherence to the ERAS pathway since its implementation in 2014 has remained stable with a median of 70% (IQR 65%-75%). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy on an ERAS pathway have a shorter length of hospital stay without increasing overall complications or readmissions rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nuria Agusti
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrés Zorrilla Vaca
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Maria D Iniesta
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gabriel Mena
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rene Pareja
- Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Ricardo Dos Reis
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital de Cancer de Barretos, Barretos, Brazil
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Angeles MA, Bizzarri N, Shushkevich A, Gómez-Hidalgo NR, Theofanakis C, Strojna A, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, Bilir E, Razumova Z, du Bois A, Cibula D, Concin N, Fotopoulou C, Rodolakis A, Harter P, Ramirez PT. Interviews from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology 2021 Congress: an IJGC-ENYGO Fellows compilation. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:468-473. [DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
|
49
|
Thomason N, Monlezun DJ, Javaid A, Filipescu A, Koutroumpakis E, Shobayo F, Kim P, Lopez-Mattei J, Cilingiroglu M, Iliescu G, Marmagkiolis K, Ramirez PT, Iliescu C. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Gynecological Cancer: Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Mortality and Cost Analysis for 383,760 Patients. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022; 8:793877. [PMID: 35237670 PMCID: PMC8882615 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.793877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundDespite the growing number of patients with both coronary artery disease and gynecological cancer, there are no nationally representative studies of mortality and cost effectiveness for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and this cancer type.MethodsBackward propagation neural network machine learning supported and propensity score adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for the above outcomes in this case-control study of the 2016 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset. Regression models were fully adjusted for age, race, income, geographic region, cancer metastases, mortality risk, and the likelihood of undergoing PCI (and also with length of stay [LOS] for cost). Analyses were also adjusted for the complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based cost effectiveness ratio (CER) analysis was performed.ResultsOf the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients meeting criteria, 1.27% had gynecological cancer of whom 0.02% underwent PCI including 0.04% with metastases. In propensity score adjusted regression among all patients, the interaction of PCI and gynecological cancer (vs. not having PCI) significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.36–0.77; p = 0.001) while increasing LOS (Beta 1.16 days, 95%CI 0.57–1.75; p < 0.001) and total cost (Beta $31,035.46, 95%CI 26758.86–35312.06; p < 0.001). Among gynecological cancer patients, mortality was significantly reduced by PCI (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.39–0.85; p = 0.006) and being in East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain regions (all p < 0.03) compared to New England. PCI reduced mortality but not significantly for metastatic patients (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.32–1.71; p = 0.481). Eighteen extra gynecological cancer patients' lives were saved with PCI for a net national cost of $3.18 billion and a CER of $176.50 million per averted death.ConclusionThis large propensity score analysis suggests that PCI may cost inefficiently reduce mortality for gynecological cancer patients, amid income and geographic disparities in outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Thomason
- Division of Cardiology, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Dominique J. Monlezun
- Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Center for Artificial Intelligence & Health Equities, Global System Analytics & Structures, New Orleans, LA, United States
| | - Awad Javaid
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, United States
| | - Alexandru Filipescu
- Division of Cardiology, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Efstratios Koutroumpakis
- Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Fisayomi Shobayo
- Division of Cardiology, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Peter Kim
- Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Juan Lopez-Mattei
- Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Mehmet Cilingiroglu
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, United States
| | - Gloria Iliescu
- Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Kostas Marmagkiolis
- Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
| | - Pedro T. Ramirez
- Department of GynOnc and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cezar Iliescu
- Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- *Correspondence: Cezar Iliescu
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Nasioudis D, Ramirez PT. Is prior conization the way forward to determine surgical approach? The answer is not so simple! Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:125-126. [PMID: 35039454 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-003315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Pedro T Ramirez
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|