OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Obstetrics and gynecology international
2010;2010 181963.

Controversies in surgical staging of endometrial cancer.

R Seracchioli, S Solfrini, M Mabrouk, C Facchini, N Di Donato, L Manuzzi, L Savelli, S Venturoli
Author Information
  1. R Seracchioli: Minimally Invasive Gynaecological Surgery Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
PMID: 20613992 DOI: 10.1155/2010/181963

Abstract

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy and its incidence is increasing. In 1998, international federation of gynaecologists and obstetricians (FIGO) required a change from clinical to surgical staging in endometrial cancer, introducing pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy. This staging requirement raised controversies around the importance of determining nodal status and impact of lymphadenectomy on outcomes. There is agreement about the prognostic value of lymphadenectomy, but its extent, therapeutic value, and benefits in terms of survival are still matter of debate, especially in early stages. Accurate preoperative risk stratification can guide to the appropriate type of surgery by selecting patients who benefit of lymphadenectomy. However, available preoperative and intraoperative investigations are not highly accurate methods to detect lymph nodes and a complete surgical staging remains the most precise method to evaluate extrauterine spread of the disease. Laparotomy has always been considered the standard approach for endometrial cancer surgical staging. Traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques seem to provide equivalent results in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival compared to laparotomy. These minimally invasive approaches demonstrated additional benefits as shorter hospital stay, less use of pain killers, lower rate of complications and improved quality of life.

References

  1. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 May;93(2):536-9 [PMID: 15099975]
  2. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;21(1):25-30 [PMID: 19125000]
  3. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 May;32(5):569-74 [PMID: 15625604]
  4. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jan;104(1):100-3 [PMID: 16963111]
  5. Tumori. 2002 May-Jun;88(3):S9-10 [PMID: 12365393]
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Apr;113(1):36-41 [PMID: 19168206]
  7. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2):253-9 [PMID: 17640720]
  8. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36 [PMID: 19070889]
  9. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 May;184(6):1177-81 [PMID: 11349185]
  10. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Feb;92(2):669-74 [PMID: 14766264]
  11. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Feb;112(2):415-21 [PMID: 18973934]
  12. Gynecol Oncol. 1993 May;49(2):177-80 [PMID: 8504985]
  13. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;112(6):1207-1213 [PMID: 19037027]
  14. JSLS. 2005 Apr-Jun;9(2):149-58 [PMID: 15984701]
  15. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41 [PMID: 3652025]
  16. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;111(2 Pt 1):436-47 [PMID: 18238985]
  17. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):109 [PMID: 19345353]
  18. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Dec;19(9):1570-3 [PMID: 19955939]
  19. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004 Mar;11(3):344-9 [PMID: 14993032]
  20. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Oct;115(1):12-17 [PMID: 19654070]
  21. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 May;279(5):655-60 [PMID: 18795308]
  22. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Sep;8(9):831-41 [PMID: 17765192]
  23. Radiology. 1999 Sep;212(3):711-8 [PMID: 10478237]
  24. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):501-5 [PMID: 19138793]
  25. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003 Sep-Oct;13(5):664-72 [PMID: 14675352]
  26. Gynecol Oncol. 2001 Dec;83(3):563-8 [PMID: 11733973]
  27. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Oct;111(1):41-5 [PMID: 18694588]
  28. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jul;106(1):89-93 [PMID: 17442383]
  29. Cancer. 2006 Oct 15;107(8):1823-30 [PMID: 16977653]
  30. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2002;23(1):53-7 [PMID: 11876394]
  31. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004 Mar-Apr;14(2):271-8 [PMID: 15086726]
  32. Cancer. 2007 Jun 15;109(12):2454-60 [PMID: 17503431]
  33. J Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Sep;20(3):135-6 [PMID: 19809545]
  34. Gynecol Oncol. 1996 Aug;62(2):169-73 [PMID: 8751545]
  35. Cancer Control. 2009 Jan;16(1):30-7 [PMID: 19078927]
  36. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Mar-Apr;15(2):319-24 [PMID: 15823119]
  37. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Mar;108(3):486-92 [PMID: 18201753]
  38. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 May;101(2):200-8 [PMID: 16510174]
  39. Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Aug;70(2):165-71 [PMID: 9740684]
  40. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Mar;29(3):295-304 [PMID: 15725797]
  41. J Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar 15;99(4):232-41 [PMID: 19072933]
  42. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Sep;24(9):1201-8 [PMID: 10976693]
  43. Surg Endosc. 2010 Apr;24(4):939-43 [PMID: 19727955]
  44. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;(9):CD006655 [PMID: 22972096]
  45. Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Jan;40(1):55-65 [PMID: 1989916]
  46. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):110-1 [PMID: 19285672]
  47. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 1;23(16):3668-75 [PMID: 15738538]
  48. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):86-91 [PMID: 18279944]
  49. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008 Jul;27(3):353-65 [PMID: 18580313]
  50. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2009 Apr;10(1-2):33-43 [PMID: 19353274]
  51. Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Mar;92(3):833-8 [PMID: 14984949]
  52. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Jan-Feb;55(1):10-30 [PMID: 15661684]
  53. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16 [PMID: 19033573]
  54. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1375-9 [PMID: 17138769]
  55. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(3):339-42 [PMID: 15171314]
  56. Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Mar;76(3):348-56 [PMID: 10684709]
  57. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;31(5):560-6 [PMID: 18398926]
  58. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):360.e1-9 [PMID: 18928974]
  59. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Jul;102(1):92-7 [PMID: 16406063]
  60. Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):689-95 [PMID: 16126261]
  61. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Suppl):S24-31 [PMID: 19573702]
  62. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):412-7 [PMID: 18834620]
  63. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 [PMID: 19367689]
  64. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8 [PMID: 18304622]
  65. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;114(1):7-15 [PMID: 19546752]
  66. Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jul;90(1):181-5 [PMID: 12821361]
  67. Cancer Control. 2009 Jan;16(1):23-9 [PMID: 19078926]
  68. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;21(1):10-4 [PMID: 19124998]
  69. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Apr;95(4):553-6 [PMID: 10725488]
  70. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Sep;199(3):388-93 [PMID: 15325608]
  71. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(5):545-51 [PMID: 15493162]
  72. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008 Oct;34(5):776-83 [PMID: 18958927]
  73. Cancer. 2001 Jan 15;91(2):378-87 [PMID: 11180085]
  74. Surg Endosc. 2005 Jun;19(6):826-31 [PMID: 15868258]
  75. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;198(6):679.e1-9; discussion 679.e9-10 [PMID: 18538151]
  76. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2009;30(2):171-3 [PMID: 19480247]
  77. South Med J. 1999 Feb;92(2):204-8 [PMID: 10071668]
  78. Surg Endosc. 2007 Feb;21(2):244-6 [PMID: 17186433]
  79. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;105(3):487-93 [PMID: 15738013]
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stagingcancersurgicallymphadenectomyendometrialsurvivalvaluebenefitstermspreoperativeEndometrialcommongynaecologicalmalignancyincidenceincreasing1998internationalfederationgynaecologistsobstetriciansFIGOrequiredchangeclinicalintroducingpelvicparaaorticrequirementraisedcontroversiesaroundimportancedeterminingnodalstatusimpactoutcomesagreementprognosticextenttherapeuticstillmatterdebateespeciallyearlystagesAccurateriskstratificationcanguideappropriatetypesurgeryselectingpatientsbenefitHoweveravailableintraoperativeinvestigationshighlyaccuratemethodsdetectlymphnodescompleteremainsprecisemethodevaluateextrauterinespreaddiseaseLaparotomyalwaysconsideredstandardapproachTraditionalrobotic-assistedlaparoscopictechniquesseemprovideequivalentresultsdisease-freeoverallcomparedlaparotomyminimallyinvasiveapproachesdemonstratedadditionalshorterhospitalstaylessusepainkillerslowerratecomplicationsimprovedqualitylifeControversies

Similar Articles

Cited By