ABSTRACT
Objective@#To evaluate the efficacy and safety of systematic lymph node dissection (SyLND) at the time of interval debulking surgery (IDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC). @*Methods@#Systematic literature review of studies including AEOC patients undergoing SyLND versus selective lymph node dissection (SeLND) or no lymph node dissection (NoLND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, blood loss, blood transfusions, operative time, and hospital stay. @*Results@#Nine retrospective studies met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1,660 patients: 827 (49.8%) SyLND, 490 (29.5%) SeLND, and 343 (20.7%) NoLND. The pooled estimated hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were, respectively, 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.65–1.20; p=0.43) and 0.80 (95% CI=0.50–1.30; p=0.37). The pooled estimated odds ratios (ORs) for severe postoperative complications, lymphocele, lymphedema, and blood transfusions were, respectively, 1.83 (95% CI=1.19–2.82; p=0.006), 3.38 (95% CI=1.71–6.70; p<0.001), 7.23 (95% CI=3.40–15.36; p<0.0001), and 1.22 (95% CI=0.50–2.96; p=0.67). @*Conclusion@#Despite the heterogeneity in the study designs, SyLND after NACT failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in PFS and OS and resulted in a higher risk of severe postoperative complications.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate current evidence on oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes of patients with stage I cervical cancer of 4 cm or larger undergoing fertility-sparing surgery (FSS). @*Methods@#Systematic review of studies including women affected by stage I cervical cancer ≥4 cm who underwent FSS. Main outcome measures: disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), pregnancy rate, live birth rate, premature delivery rate. @*Results@#Fifteen studies met all eligibility criteria for this systematic review, involving 48 patients affected by cervical cancer ≥4 cm who completed FSS. Three patients (6.3%) experienced a recurrence and one of them (2.1%) died of disease. The 5-year DFS rate was 92.4%. The 5-year OS rate was 97.6%. A significantly shorter 5-year DFS was reported for high-risk patients (G3, non-squamous histotype, diameter ≥5 cm) compared with low-risk (74.7% vs. 100%; log-rank test, p=0.024). Data about fertility outcomes were available for 12 patients. Five patients out of 12 (41.7%) attempted to conceive with an estimated pregnancy rate of 80%, a live birth rate of 83.3% and a premature delivery rate of 20%. @*Conclusion@#Women with high tumor grade, aggressive histology and tumor size ≥5 cm have a higher risk of recurrence. Oncologic outcomes are encouraging among low-risk patients; however, the lack of high-quality studies makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions. Prospective multicentric clinical trials with a proper selection of inclusion/exclusion criteria should be conducted in women with low-risk factors, strong desire to preserve their fertility and high likelihood to conceive.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) in predicting disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) among surgically treated patients with vulvar carcinoma. The secondary aim is to evaluate its impact as a predictor of the pattern of recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data of patients that underwent surgical treatment for vulvar cancer from 1998 to 2016. ACCI at the time of primary surgery was evaluated and patients were classified as low (ACCI 0–1), intermediate (ACCI 2–3), and high risk (>3). DFS, OS and CSS were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meir and the Cox proportional hazard models. Logistic regression model was used to assess predictors of distant and local recurrence. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in the study. Twelve were classified as low, 36 as intermediate, and 30 as high risk according to their ACCI. Using multivariate analysis, ACCI class was an independent predictor of worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.54–5.99; p < 0.001), OS (HR=5.25; 95% CI=1.63–16.89; p=0.005) and CSS (HR=3.79; 95% CI=1.13–12.78; p=0.03). Positive nodal status (odds ratio=8.46; 95% CI=2.13–33.58; p=0.002) was the only parameter correlated with distant recurrence at logistic regression. CONCLUSION: ACCI could be a useful tool in predicting prognosis in surgically treated vulvar cancer patients. Prospective multicenter trials assessing the role of ACCI in vulvar cancer patients are warranted.
