The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment and evaluation of patients with early, advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. The application of robotic technology for selected patients with cervical cancer and the data available in the literature are addressed in the present review paper. The robotic radical hysterectomy technique developed at the Mayo Clinic Arizona is presented with data comparing 27 patients who underwent the robotic procedure with 2 matched groups of patients treated by laparoscopic (N = 31), and laparotomic radical hysterectomy (N = 35). A few other studies confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy and comparisons to either to the laparoscopic or open approach were discussed. Based on data from the literature, minimally invasive techniques including laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients requiring radical hysterectomy, with some advantages noted for robotics over laparoscopy. A prospective randomised trial is currently being perfomred under the auspices of the American Association of Gyneoclogic Laparoscopists comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (laparoscopy or robotics) with laparotomy. For early cervical cancer radical parametrectomy and fertility preserving trachelectomy have been performed using robotic technology and been shown to be feasible, safe, and easier to perform when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Similar benefits have been noted in the treatment of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer where complex procedures such as extraperitoneal paraortic lymphadenectomy and pelvic exenteration have been required. CONCLUSION: Robotic technology better facilitates the surgical approach as compared to laparoscopy for technically challenging operations performed to treat primary, early or advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. Although patient advantages are similar or slightly improved with robotics, there are multiple advantages for surgeons.
Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/*methods ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/methods ; Lymph Node Excision/methods ; Pelvic Exenteration/methods ; Robotics/*methods ; Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive/methods ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/*surgery

OBJECTIVE: Stage IB–IIA cervical carcinoma can be equally cured either by radical surgery or radiotherapy (RT). Albeit such policies show the same efficacy, they carry a different morbidity. This is an update after 20 years of a previously published randomized trial of RT vs. surgery in the treatment of stage IB–IIA cervical cancers to assess long-term survival and morbidity and the different pattern of relapse between the 2 modalities. METHODS: Between September 1986 and December 1991, women referred for a newly diagnosed stage IB and IIA cervical carcinoma were randomized to radical surgery or RT. The primary outcome measures were long-term survival and complications rate. The secondary outcome was recurrence of the disease. RESULTS: Three-hundred forty-three eligible women were randomized: 172 to radical surgery and 171 to external RT. Minimum follow-up was 19 years. Thirty-three patients (10%) died of intercurrent disease (31 cases) or fatal complications (2 cases). Twenty-year overall survival is 72% and 77% in the 2 treatment groups (p=0.280), respectively. As a whole, 94 recurrences (28%) were observed. Median time to relapse was 13.5 (surgery group) and 11.5 months (radiotherapy group) (p=0.100), respectively. Multivariate analysis confirms that risk factors for survival are histotype (p=0.020), tumor diameter (p=0.008), and lymph node status (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study seem to suggest that there is no treatment of choice for early stage cervical carcinoma in terms of survival. Long term follow-up confirms that the best treatment for the individual patient should take into account clinical factors such as menopausal status, comorbidities, histological type, and tumor diameter.
Comorbidity ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Multivariate Analysis ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Radiotherapy* ; Recurrence ; Risk Factors ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*

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.