Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze and draw the potential differences between the robotic-assisted surgery (RS) and the laparoscopy (LPS) in endometrial cancer staging. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective study we enrolled 1,221 consecutive clinical stage I–III endometrial cancer patients undergone minimally invasive surgical staging. We compared patients treated by LPS and by RS, on the basis of perioperative and oncological outcomes (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]). A sub-analysis of the highrisk endometrial cancer population was performed in the 2 cohorts. Results: The 2 cohorts (766 treated by LPS and 455 by RS) were homogeneous in terms of perioperative and pathological data. We recorded differences in number of relapse/ progression (11.7% in LPS vs. 7% in RS, p=0.008) and in number of deaths (9.8% in LPS vs. 4.8% in RS, p=0.002). Whereas, univariate and multivariate analyses according to DFS and OS confirmed that the surgical approach did not influence the DFS or the OS. In the multivariable analysis the association of the age and grading was significant for DFS and OS. In the sub-analysis of the 426 high risk EC patients (280 in LPS and 146 in RS) the univariate and the multivariate confirmed the influence of the age in DFS and OS, independently of the minimally invasive approach. Conclusions In our large retrospective analysis, we confirmed that the RS and LPS have similar efficacy and safety for endometrial cancer staging also for the high-risk endometrial cancer patients.

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the prognostic role of lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI), evaluated in a semi-quantitative fashion on prognosis of early stage, low risk endometrial cancer (EC). Methods: We enrolled patients who underwent surgery for endometrial cancer between 2003 and 2018 in two referral cancer center. All patients had endometrioid EC, G1–G2, with myometrial invasion <50%, and no lymph-node involvement. LVSI was analyzed in a semiquantitative way, according to a 3-tiered scoring system in absent, focal and substantial. Results: Among 524 patients, any positive LVSI was found in 57 patients (10.9%) with focal LVSI (n=35, 6.7%) and substantial LVSI (n=22, 4.2%). Substantial LVSI was associated to higher rate of G2 (p<0.001), myometrial infiltration (p=0.002) and greater tumor dimensions (p=0.014). Patients with substantial LVSI were more likely to receive adjuvant treatment (6.6% vs. 52.6%, p<0.001). The 5-year OS was 99.5% in patients with absent LVSI and 70.6% in those with substantial LVSI (p<0.001). The 5-year disease free survival (DFS) was 93.6% in patients with absent LVSI and 56.5% in those with substantial LVSI (p<0.001). The rate of distant failures increased from 1.8% for absent LVSI to 22.7% for substantial LVSI (p=0.002). In univariate analysis substantial LVSI was the strongest predictor of poor overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]=11.9, p=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that substantial LVSI was an independent predictive factor of both recurrence (HR=5.88, p=0.001) and distant failure (HR=10.6, p=0.006). Conclusions Substantial LVSI represents the strongest independent risk factor for decreased survival and distant relapse, indicating a role for potential hematogenous dissemination.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate survival outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients with single vs. multiple positive pelvic lymph nodes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of all consecutive patients with histologically proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC1 EEC who underwent primary surgical treatment between 2004 and 2014 at seven Italian gynecologic oncology referral centers. Patients with pre- or intra-operative evidence of extra-uterine disease (including the presence of bulky nodes) and patients with stage IIIC2 disease were excluded, in order to obtain a homogeneous population. RESULTS: Overall 140 patients met the inclusion criteria. The presence of >1 metastatic pelvic node was significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence and mortality, compared to only 1 metastatic node, at both univariate (recurrence: hazard ratio [HR]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.2–3.99; p=0.01; mortality: HR=2.8; 95% CI=1.24–6.29; p=0.01) and multivariable analysis (recurrence: HR=1.91; 95% CI=1.02–3.56; p=0.04; mortality: HR=2.62; 95% CI=1.13–6.05; p=0.02) and it was the only independent predictor of prognosis in this subset of patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were significantly longer in patients with only 1 metastatic node compared to those with more than 1 metastatic node (p=0.008 and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: The presence of multiple metastatic nodes in stage IIIC1 EEC represents an independent predictor of worse survival, compared to only one positive node. Our data suggest that EEC patients may be categorized according to the number of positive nodes.
Disease-Free Survival ; Endometrial Neoplasms* ; European Union ; Female ; Gynecology ; Humans ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph Nodes ; Mortality ; Obstetrics ; Prognosis ; Recurrence ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies

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.