Objective: To evaluate the oncological outcomes of patients with low-volume metastasis compared to those with macrometastasis and negative nodes in endometrial cancer. Methods: A single institutional retrospective study was carried out, which included all patients with endometrial cancer who underwent surgical treatment between January 2007 and December 2016. We analyzed the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients after sentinel node biopsy and full nodal surgical staging according to their final pathological nodal status, focusing on the impact of the size of nodal metastasis. Results: A total of 270 patients were operated on during the study period; among them, 230 (85.2%) patients underwent nodal staging. On final pathology, 196 (85.2%) patients had negative lymph nodes; low-volume metastasis (LVM) was present in 14 (6.1%) patients: 6 (2.6%) patients had isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and 8 (3.5%) patients presented just micrometastasis; additionally, 20 (8.7%) patients presented macrometastasis. After a median (range) follow-up of 60 (0–146) months, patients with macrometastasis showed a significantly worse PFS compared to LVM and node-negative patients (61.1% vs. 71.4% vs. 83.2%, respectively; p = 0.018), and similar results were obtained for 5-year OS (50% vs. 78.6% vs. 81.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Half of the patients presenting LVM did not receive adjuvant treatment. Moreover, LVM had a moderate nonsignificant decrease in 5-year PFS compared to node-negative patients. Conclusions: Patients with endometrial cancer and low-volume nodal metastasis demonstrated a better prognosis than those presenting macrometastasis. Low-volume metastasis did not show worse oncological outcomes than node-negative patients, although there was a slight decrease in progression-free survival.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of low-volume metastasis (LVM) on disease-free survival (DFS) in women with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. Patients with pre-operative early-stage EC were retrospectively collected from an international collaboration including 13 referring institutions. A total of 1428 patients were included in this analysis. One hundred and eighty-six patients (13%) had lymph node involvement. Fifty-nine percent of positive SLN exhibited micrometastases, 26.9% micrometastases, and 14% isolated tumor cells. Seventeen patients with positive lymph nodes did not receive any adjuvant therapy. At a median follow-up of 33.3 months, the disease had recurred in 114 women (8%). Patients with micrometastases in the lymph nodes had a worse prognosis of disease-free survival compared to patients with negative nodes or LVM. The rate of recurrence was significantly higher for women with micrometastases than those with low-volume metastases (HR = 2.61; p = 0.01). The administration of adjuvant treatment in patients with LVM, without uterine risk factors, remains a matter of debate and requires further evaluation.

Objective: Given the improvement in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer with the inclusion of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), our aim was to evaluate the impact of this minimally invasive and tailored nodal assessment on patients’ quality of life (QoL). Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a single-centre, tertiary-level hospital. Patients diagnosed with preoperative early-stage endometrial cancer, who underwent primary surgical treatment between August 2015 and November 2021, were included. The enrolled patients were divided into two cohorts according to the nodal staging performed: the first group underwent only SLNB (SLNB group); the second group underwent pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy (LND group). We evaluated the overall QoL using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life core 30-item questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and a sexual health questionnaire (EORTC SHQ-C20). The scores were compared between the groups. Results: Ninety patients were enrolled in the study: 61 (67.8%) in the SLNB group and 29 (32.2%) in the LND group. In the LND group, 24 (82.7%) patients underwent pelvic and para-aortic LND, while 5 (17.3%) patients underwent pelvic LND. The assessment of the functional scales showed better results for the SLNB group than for the LND group, with a significantly lower impact on physical status (8.2% vs. 25%, respectively; p = 0.031). In terms of the symptom scales, the SLNB group reported a significantly lower negative impact on sleep quality (4.9% vs. 27.6%, respectively; p < 0.01), pain (1.6% vs. 13.8%, respectively; p = 0.019), and dyspnoea (0% vs. 10.3%, respectively; p = 0.011) than the LND group. The SLNB group had better results for all analysed items regarding sexual QoL. Conclusions: The implementation of a surgical technique with SLNB improved patients’ overall QoL by increasing their well-being in the functional and symptom spheres.

Adenomyosis has been associated with better survival outcomes in women with endometrial cancer. However, although the endometrial cancer patients’ risk stratification has been revolutionized by molecular findings, the impact of the molecular signature on the favorable prognosis of endometrial cancer patients with coexistent adenomyosis is unknown. The aim of our study was to compare the prevalence of molecular groups at poor and intermediate prognosis between endometrial cancer patients with and without coexistent adenomyosis. A multicentric, observational, retrospective, cohort study was performed to assess the differences in the prevalence of p53-abnormal expression (p53-abn) and mismatch repair protein-deficient expression (MMR-d) signatures between endometrial cancer patients with and without coexistent adenomyosis. A total of 147 endometrial cancer patients were included in the study: 38 in the adenomyosis group and 109 in the no adenomyosis group. A total of 37 patients showed the MMR-d signature (12 in the adenomyosis group and 25 in the no adenomyosis group), while 12 showed the p53-abn signature (3 in the adenomyosis group and 9 in the no adenomyosis group). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of p53-abn (p = 1.000) and MMR-d (p = 0.2880) signatures between endometrial cancer patients with and without coexistent adenomyosis. In conclusion, the molecular signature does not appear to explain the better prognosis associated with coexistent adenomyosis in endometrial cancer patients. Further investigation of these findings is necessary through future larger studies.

(1) Background: This study aimed to analyze the impact of surgical approach on survival rates in women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. (2) Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort of 1382 women diagnosed with EC was performed. A total of 684 (49.5%) women underwent minimally invasive surgery, 233 (34%) underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL), 451 (66%) underwent conventional laparoscopy (LPS), and 698 (50.5%) underwent open surgery (OP). Sociodemographic features, tumor characteristics, and survival rates were analyzed in the whole sample and in a matched-pair model. (3) Results: Women operated on by OP were significantly older, presented more comorbidities, and had more aggressive tumors. Disease-free (DFS), overall (OS), and specific survival related to EC (SS) amounts were significantly higher for MIS compared to OP (p < 0.001). When matched by age, body mass index, comorbidities, ASA score, histological type, grade, myometrial invasion, and FIGO stage, 798 patients were selected. DFS, OS, and SS amounts were similar between the MIS and OP groups. (4) Conclusions: The surgical approach for women with EC does not impact DFS or OS amounts when matched by homogeneous groups.

The benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine adjuvant RT’s impact on survival in accordance with Sedlis criteria. Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy between 2005 and 2022 at a single tertiary care institution were included. A multivariate analysis was performed to determinate if RT was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence or death. We also analysed whether there was a statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who met only one or two Sedlis criteria, depending on whether they received adjuvant RT or not. 121 patients were included in this retrospective study, of whom 48 (39.7%) received adjuvant RT due to the presence of unfavourable pathological findings. In multivariate analysis, RT was not found to be a statistically significant prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.584) or disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.559). When comparing patients who met one or two Sedlis criteria, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between RT and no adjuvant treatment in either group. Since the selection of patients with cervical cancer eligible for surgery is becoming more accurate, adjuvant RT might not be necessary for patients with intermediate risk factors.