Peritoneal cytology as prognostic factor in cervical cancer

Abstract

The series indicates that PC in squamous cell cervical cancer is not a significant prognostic factor. Its routine collection in squamous cancer should be abandoned in this setting. On the other hand, the unfavorable prognostic profile of PC positive cases in our investigation suggest a possible impact of this variable on outcome. The significant link between PC and locally advanced adenocarcinomas underwent neoadjuvant therapy before surgery warrants a further investigation to assess its real prognostic value and its indication in this particular clinical setting.

The Role of Liquid Based Cytology and Ancillary Techniques in the Peritoneal Washing Analysis: Our Institutional Experience

“…In keeping with the data by literature, our yields established that the majority of peritoneal effusions represent metastatic involvement from primary adenocarcinoma particularly in female patients with gynecological carcinomas whilst gastro intestinal carcinoma in both sexes [6–15]. According to Ditto et al, we did not find any case of positive effusions in squamous cervical carcinoma [15].…”

“…Moreover, our 99.8% benign and 99.6% cyto-histological correlation demonstrated a higher value than that reported by literature mostly due to the application of TP preparation [6–15]. …”

“…According to Ditto et al, we did not find any case of positive effusions in squamous cervical carcinoma [15]. In detail, in our peritoneal effusions series we diagnosed 64% gynecological metastatic cancers including 55% ovarian and 9% endometrial carcinomas, followed by gastro-intestinal cancers (16%) but also 13% of unknown primary origin.…”

“…Specifically, Creasman and Rutledge, reported that the majority of positive peritoneal washings are associated with gynecological cancers (the highest percentage of positive washings was in ovarian followed by endometrial and rarely cervical cancers); so that their cytological evaluation may stratify patients in either the initial diagnosis of symptomatic gynecological cancers or the management and survival [6]. In fact, since the 1950s, peritoneal washing has been an essential part of the management of ovarian and endometrial carcinomas with the exception of cervical cancers [7–15]. Despite this consideration, the 2008 revision of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) eliminated the performance and analysis of washing yields from the endometrial carcinoma staging.…”

Fertility Sparing Options in Gynecologic Oncology

“…Apart patients with FIGO stage IA G1-2 for whom fertility sparing treatment is largely accepted; only few data for higher stages or aggressive histologies are available. Anyway comparable oncologic and obstetrical results seem achievable [12][13][14][15][16][17].…”