ABSTRACT
Objective@#This study aimed to validate the surgical and oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery with sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) in endometrial cancer. @*Methods@#This study included 130 patients with endometrial cancer, who underwent robotic surgery, including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic SNNS at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Kagoshima University Hospital. Pelvic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were identified using the uterine cervix 99m Technetium-labeled phytate and indocyanine green injections. Surgery-related and survival outcomes were also evaluated. @*Results@#The median operative and console times and volume of blood loss were 204 (range: 101–555) minutes, 152 (range: 70–453) minutes, and 20 (range: 2–620) mL, respectively. The bilateral and unilateral pelvic SLN detection rates were 90.0% (117/130) and 5.4% (7/130), respectively, and the identification rate (the rate at which at least one SLN could be identified on either side) was 95% (124/130). Lower extremity lymphedema occurred in only 1 patient (0.8%), and no pelvic lymphocele occurred. Recurrence occurred in 3 patients (2.3%), and the recurrence site was the abdominal cavity, with dissemination in 2 patients and vaginal stump in one. The 3-year recurrence-free survival and 3-year overall survival rates were 97.1% and 98.9%, respectively. @*Conclusion@#Robotic surgery with SNNS for endometrial cancer showed a high SLN identification rate, low occurrence rates of lower extremity lymphedema and pelvic lymphocele, and excellent oncologic outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Palonosetron is effective for the management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). While emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat gynecologic cancers, few studies have evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of palonosetron in this setting. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of palonosetron in controlling CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg/body) and dexamethasone before the infusion of carboplatin-based chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered (orally or intravenously) on days 2–3. The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated using the patient-completed Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and treatment diaries. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing complete control (CC) of vomiting, with “no rescue antiemetic medication” and “no clinically significant nausea” or “only mild nausea” in the delayed phase (24–120 hours post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR: “no vomiting” and “no rescue antiemetic medication”) in the acute (0–24 hours), delayed (24–120 hours), and overall (0–120 hours) phases, and CC in the acute and overall phases. RESULTS: Efficacy was assessable in 77 of 80 patients recruited. In the acute and delayed phases, the CR rates the primary endpoint, were 71.4% and 59.7% and the CC rates, the secondary endpoint, were 97.4% and 96.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While palonosetron effectively controls acute CINV, additional antiemetic management is warranted in the delayed phase after carboplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic cancer patients (Trial registry at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012806).