OBJECTIVE: To introduce a systematic classification of diaphragmatic surgery in patients with ovarian cancer based on disease spread and surgical complexity.METHODS: For all consecutive patients who underwent diaphragmatic surgery during Visceral-Peritoneal debulking (VPD) in the period 2009–2017, we extracted: initial surgical finding, extent of liver mobilization and type of procedure. Combining these features, we aimed to classify the surgical procedures necessary to tackle different presentation of diaphragmatic disease. We also report histology, intra- and post-operative specific complication rate based on the classification.RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included in this study, 110 (64.7%) had a peritonectomy, while 60 (35.3%) had a full thickness resection with pleurectomy. We identified 3 types of surgical procedures. Type I treated 28 out of 170 patients (16.5%) who only had anterior diaphragm disease, needed no liver mobilization, included peritonectomy and had no morbidity recorded. Type II pertained to 105 out of 170 patients (61.7%) who had anterior and posterior disease, needed partial and sometimes full liver mobilization, had a mix of peritonectomy and full thickness resection, and experienced 10% specific morbidity. Type III included 37 out of 170 patients (21.7%) who needed full mobilization of the liver, always had full thickness resection, and suffered 30% specific morbidity.CONCLUSION: Diaphragmatic surgery can be classified in 3 types. The adoption of this classification can facilitate standardization of the surgery, comparison of data and define the expertise required. Finally, this classification can be a benchmark to establish the training required to treat diaphragmatic disease.
Benchmarking ; Classification ; Diaphragm ; Humans ; Liver ; Ovarian Neoplasms

Objective: This study investigates the specific morbidity of rectosigmoid resection (RSR) during Visceral-Peritoneal Debulking (VPD) in a consecutive series of patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer and compares the results of the colo-rectal vs. the gynaecologic oncology team. Methods: All patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC–IV ovarian cancer who had VPD and RSR were included in the study.Between 2009 and 2013 all operations were performed by the gynecologic oncology team alone (group 1). Since 2013 the RSR was performed by the colorectal team together with the gynecologic oncologist (group 2). All pre-operative information and surgical details were compared to exclude significant bias. Intra- and post-operative morbidity events were recorded and compared between groups. Results: One hundred and sixty-two patients had a RSR during VPD, 93 in group 1 and 69 in group 2. Groups were comparable for all pre-operative features other than: albumin (1<2) hemoglobin (2<1) and up-front surgery (1>2). Overall morbidity was 33% vs. 40% (p=0.53), bowel specific morbidity 11.8% vs. 11.5% (p=0.81), anastomotic leak 4.1% vs. 6.1% (p=0.43) and re-operation rate 9.6% vs. 6.1% (p=0.71) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. None of them were significantly different. The rate of bowel diversion was 36.5% in group 1 vs. 46.3% in group 2 (p=0.26). Conclusions Our study failed to demonstrate any significant difference in the morbidity rate of RSR based on the team performing the surgery. These data warrant further investigation as they are interesting with regards to education, finance, and medico-legal aspects.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a systematic classification of diaphragmatic surgery in patients with ovarian cancer based on disease spread and surgical complexity. METHODS: For all consecutive patients who underwent diaphragmatic surgery during Visceral-Peritoneal debulking (VPD) in the period 2009–2017, we extracted: initial surgical finding, extent of liver mobilization and type of procedure. Combining these features, we aimed to classify the surgical procedures necessary to tackle different presentation of diaphragmatic disease. We also report histology, intra- and post-operative specific complication rate based on the classification. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included in this study, 110 (64.7%) had a peritonectomy, while 60 (35.3%) had a full thickness resection with pleurectomy. We identified 3 types of surgical procedures. Type I treated 28 out of 170 patients (16.5%) who only had anterior diaphragm disease, needed no liver mobilization, included peritonectomy and had no morbidity recorded. Type II pertained to 105 out of 170 patients (61.7%) who had anterior and posterior disease, needed partial and sometimes full liver mobilization, had a mix of peritonectomy and full thickness resection, and experienced 10% specific morbidity. Type III included 37 out of 170 patients (21.7%) who needed full mobilization of the liver, always had full thickness resection, and suffered 30% specific morbidity. CONCLUSION Diaphragmatic surgery can be classified in 3 types. The adoption of this classification can facilitate standardization of the surgery, comparison of data and define the expertise required. Finally, this classification can be a benchmark to establish the training required to treat diaphragmatic disease.

Objective: To describe the surgical technique and evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic diaphragmatic peritonectomy during Visceral-Peritoneal Debulking (VPD) in patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: This report is part of a Service Evaluation Protocol (Trust number 3267) on laparoscopy in patients with OC following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Between April 2015 and November 2017, all patients underwent to exploratory laparoscopy and a selected court was offered laparoscopic VPD. Laparoscopic diaphragmatic surgery was considered if there was no full thickness involvement. Primary endpoints of this part of the study were the safety, feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic diaphragmatic peritonectomy. We report the surgical technique and outcomes. Results: Ninety-six patients underwent diaphragmatic surgery during the study period. Fifty patients (52.1%) had intra-operative exclusion criteria and/or full thickness diaphragmatic resection, 46 (47.9%) had peritonectomy and were included in the study. Laparoscopic diaphragmatic peritonectomy was performed in 21 patients (45.4%, group 1), while in 25 patients (54.6%, group 2) laparotomy was necessary. Extent of disease and complexity of surgery were similar. Reasons for conversions were disease coalescing the liver to the diaphragm preventing safe mobilization (22 patients) and accidental pleural opening (3 patients). Overall, intra- and post-operative morbidity was lower in group 1 and pulmonary specific morbidity was very low. Conclusion Diaphragmatic peritonectomy can be safely accomplished by laparoscopy in almost half of the patients with OC whose disease is limited to the diaphragmatic peritoneum.

Objective: Uterine serous carcinoma (USC) is a rare highly aggressive disease. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the survival implication of the systematic lymphadenectomy in patients who underwent surgery for apparent early-stage USC. Methods: Consecutive patients with apparent early-stage USC surgically treated at six Italian referral cancer centers were analyzed. A comparison was made between patients who underwent retroperitoneal staging including at least pelvic lymphadenectomy “LND” vs.those who underwent hysterectomy alone “NO-LND”. Baseline, surgical and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan- Meier curves were calculated for disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Associations were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression and summarized using hazard ratio (HR). Results: One hundred forty patients were analyzed, 106 LND and 34 NO-LND. NO-LND group (compared to LND group) included older patients (median age, 73 vs.67 years) and with higher comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index, 6 vs. 5) (p<0.001). No differences in terms of recurrence rate (LND vs. NO-LND, 33.1% vs. 41.4%; p=0.240) were observed. At Cox regression analysis lymphadenectomy did not significantly influence DFS (HR=0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.32–1.08; p=0.09), and DSS (HR=0.14; 95% CI=0.02–1.21; multivariable analysis p=0.07). Positive node was independently associated with worse DFS (HR=6.22; 95% CI=3.08–12.60; p<0.001) and DSS (HR=5.51; 95% CI=2.31– 13.10; p<0.001), while adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved DFS (HR=0.38;95% CI=0.17–0.86; p=0.02) and age was independently associated with worse DSS (HR=1.07;95% CI=1.02–1.13; p<0.001). Conclusions Although lymphadenectomy did not show survival benefits in patients who underwent surgery for apparent early-stage USC, the presence of lymph node metastasis was the main adverse prognostic factors, supporting the prognostic role of the retroperitoneal staging also in this histological subtype.

Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has correlated with the disruption of screening activities and diagnostic assessments. Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies and it is often detected at an early stage, because it frequently produces symptoms. Here, we aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study involving 54 centers in Italy. We evaluated patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients before (period 1: March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) and during (period 2: April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) the COVID-19 outbreak. Results: Medical records of 5,164 EC patients have been retrieved: 2,718 and 2,446 women treated in period 1 and period 2, respectively. Surgery was the mainstay of treatment in both periods (p=0.356). Nodal assessment was omitted in 689 (27.3%) and 484 (21.2%) patients treated in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). While, the prevalence of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping (with or without backup lymphadenectomy) has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (46.7% in period 1 vs. 52.8% in period 2; p<0.001). Overall, 1,280 (50.4%) and 1,021 (44.7%) patients had no adjuvant therapy in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Adjuvant therapy use has increased during COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). Conclusion Our data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the characteristics and patterns of care of EC patients. These findings highlight the need to implement healthcare services during the pandemic.