Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the SLN detection rate in presumed early stage, low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancers, the incidence of SLN metastases, and the negative predictive value of SLN mapping performed with indocyanine green (ICG). Methods: A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Study inclusion criteria were A) low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer, B) the use of ICG per cervical injection; C) a minimum of twenty included patients per study. To assess the negative predictive value of SLN mapping, D) a subsequent lymphadenectomy was an additional inclusion criterion. Results: Fourteen studies were selected, involving 2,117 patients. The overall and bilateral SLN detection rates were 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]=92.4%–97.9%) and 76.5% (95% CI=68.1%–84.0%), respectively. The incidence of SLN metastases was 9.6% (95% CI=5.1%–15.2%) in patients with grade 1–2 endometrial cancer and 11.8% (95% CI=8.1%–16.1%) in patients with grade 1–3 endometrial cancer. The negative predictive value of SLN mapping was 100% (95% CI=98.8%–100%) in studies that included grade 1–2 endometrial cancer and 99.2% (95% CI=97.9%–99.9%) in studies that also included grade 3. Conclusion SLN mapping with ICG is feasible with a high detection rate and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancers. Given the incidence of SLN metastases is approximately 10% in those patients, SLN mapping may lead to stage shifting with potential therapeutic consequences. Given the high negative predictive value with SLN mapping, routine lymphadenectomy should be omitted in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

Objective: SHAPE (Simple Hysterectomy And PElvic node assessment) was an international phase III trial demonstrating that simple hysterectomy was non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for pelvic recurrence risk, but superior for quality of life and sexual health.The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing simple vs. radical hysterectomy for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Markov model compared the costs and benefits of simple vs. radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer over a 5-year time horizon. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from health utilities derived from EQ-5D-3L surveys. Sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty around key parameters. Monte Carlo simulation estimated complication numbers according to surgical procedure. Results: Simple hysterectomy was more effective and less costly than radical hysterectomy. Average overall costs were $11,022 and $12,533, and average gains were 3.56 and 3.54 QALYs for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. Baseline health utility scores were 0.81 and 0.83 for simple and radical hysterectomy, respectively. By year 3, these scores improved for simple hysterectomy (0.82) but not for radical hysterectomy (0.82). Assuming 800 early cervical cancer patients annually in Canada, the model estimated 3 vs. 82 patients with urinary retention, and 49 vs. 86 patients with urinary incontinence persisting 4 weeks after simple vs.radical hysterectomy, respectively. Results were most sensitive to variability in health utilities after surgery, but stable through wide ranges of costs and recurrence estimates. Conclusion Simple hysterectomy is less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared to radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.