BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse.MethodsWe obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group.ResultsMean age was 48.3 years (range; 23–83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m2 (range; 15–49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52).ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009).MethodsA multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score.ResultsWe obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively).ConclusionsIn this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death.

Radical hysterectomy using a laparoscopic approach is feasible and reproducible after initial BT for stage IB1 cervical cancer and is associated with excellent survival. Morbidity is close to that reported in patients treated with up-front surgery. In this large series, the morbidity associated with parametrial dissection and the fact that parametrial spread was observed in only 0.6% of the patients suggest that a simple extrafascial hysterectomy is perhaps sufficient in this context; the rate of urinary tract morbidity would then be reduced.

No abstract

Highlights d Diagnosis of endometrial cancer does not include sentinel lymph node mapping d In depth-proteomics analysis of sentinel lymph nodes and individuals with endometrial cancer d We identify potential biomarkers for tumor grade and overall survival

No abstract

Background Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy with high recurrence rates. Because recurrence involves primarily the peritoneum, intraperitoneal chemotherapy is being evaluated as a new approach to treat microscopic peritoneal disease. One trial showed that cisplatin–paclitaxel intraperitoneal chemotherapy with intravenous paclitaxel improved survival but increased morbidity. Another trial reported a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) without increasing the morbidity ( P = 0.76) or mortality rates (hazard ratio 0.67, P = 0.02) after adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreduction. The current trial aims to evaluate the impact of adding HIPEC to primary or interval cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) on the efficacy, safety, treatment feasibility, and quality of life. Patients and methods This is an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized (1 : 1), two-arm, phase III clinical trial that will enroll 432 patients with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III EOC. Patients are randomized to receive or not HIPEC with the standard of care. Inclusion criteria include patients with FIGO stage III EOC, Fallopian tube carcinoma or primary peritoneal cancer who undergo complete primary or interval cytoreduction. The primary objective is to assess DFS of the addition of HIPEC. Secondary objectives are the assessment of OS, safety, return to intended oncologic treatment, quality of life and the trade-off between efficacy and morbidity. Conclusions The results might help extend the indications of HIPEC to include patients undergoing primary cytoreduction, providing a standardized protocol for HIPEC in EOC management and reliable information on the quality of life after adding HIPEC.