Objective To determine the incidence of long term lymphadenectomy complications in primary surgery for endometrial cancer and to elucidate risk factors for these complications. Methods A retrospective chart review was carried out for all patients with endometrial cancer managed at Parma University Hospital Unit of Gynecology and Obstetrics between 2010 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were surgical procedure including hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy (pelvic or pelvic and aortic). We identified patients with postoperative lymphocele and lower extremity lymphedema. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictive factors for postoperative complications. Results Of the 249 patients tested, 198 underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy (79.5%), and 51 (20.5%) of those underwent both pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Among the 249 patients, 92 (36.9 %) developed lymphedema while 43 (17.3%) developed lymphocele. Multivariate analysis showed that addition of para-artic lymphadenectomy was an independent predictor for both lymphedema (odds ratio (OR) 2.764, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.023 to 7.470) and lymphocele (OR 5.066, 95% CI 1.605 to 15.989). Moreover, postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy (OR 2.733, 95% CI 1.149 to 6.505) and identification of any positive lymph node (OR 19.391, 95% CI 1.486 to 253.0) were significantly correlated with lymphedema, while removal of circumflex iliac nodes (OR 8.596, 95% CI 1.144 to 65.591) was associated with lymphoceles occurrence. Conclusion Although sentinel lymph node navigation is a promising option, lymphadenectomy represents the primary treatment in many patients with endometrial cancer. However, comprehensive nodal dissection remains associated with a high rate of long term complications, such as lymphedema and lymphocele. Avoiding risk factors that are related to the development of these postoperative complications is often difficult and, therefore, the strategy to assess lymph nodal status in these women must be tailored to obtain the maximum results in terms of oncological and functional outcome.

Objectives Laparoscopy is commonly used for endometrial cancer treatment, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has become the standard procedure for nodal assessment. Despite the standardization of the technique, there is no definitive data regarding its failure rate. The objective of this study is to identify factors associated with unsuccessful SLN mapping in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic SLN mapping after intracervical indocyanine green (ICG) injection. Methods We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of endometrial cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic SLN mapping with intracervical ICG injection, in four oncological referral centers from January 2016 to July 2019. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven endometrial cancer, total laparoscopic approach, and intracervical ICG injection. Exclusion criteria were evidence of lymph node involvement or extrauterine disease at pre-operative imaging, synchronous invasive cancer, the use of tracers different from ICG, and the use of neoadjuvant treatment. Bilateral and failed bilateral SLN mapping groups were compared for clinical and pathological features. In patients with an unsuccessful procedure, side-specific lymphadenectomy was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of failure. Results A total of 376 patients were included in the study. The overall bilateral and unilateral SLN detection rates were 96.3%, 76.3%, and 20.0% respectively. The failed bilateral mapping detection rate was 23.7%. The median number of sentinel nodes removed was 2.2 (range, 0–5). After multivariate analysis, lymph vascular space involvement [OR 2.4 (1.04–1.12), P=0.003], non-endometrioid histology [OR 3.0 (1.43–6.29), P=0.004], and intraoperative finding of enlarged lymph node [OR 2.3 (1.01–5.31), P=0.045] were identified as independent predictors of failure of SLN mapping. Conclusion Lymph vascular space involvement, non-endometrioid histology, and intra-operative finding of enlarged lymph nodes were identified as independent risk factors for unsuccessful mapping in patients undergoing laparoscopic SLN mapping.

Radical hysterectomy and plus pelvic node dissection are the primary methods of treatment for patients with early stage cervical cancer. During the last decade, growing evidence has supported the adoption of a minimally invasive approach. Retrospective data suggested that minimally invasive surgery improves perioperative outcomes, without neglecting long-term oncologic outcomes. In 2018, the guidelines from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology stated that a “minimally invasive approach is favored” in comparison with open surgery. However, the phase III, randomized Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial questioned the safety of the minimally invasive approach. The LACC trial highlighted that the execution of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy correlates with an increased risk of recurrence and death. After its publication, other retrospective studies investigated this issue, with differing results. Recent evidence suggested that robotic-assisted surgery is not associated with an increased risk of worse oncologic outcomes. The phase III randomized Robotic-assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer (RACC) and the Robotic Versus Open Hysterectomy Surgery in Cervix Cancer (ROCC) trials will clarify the pros and cons of performing a robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (with tumor containment before colpotomy) in early stage cervical cancer.

Objective Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic neoplasm. To date, international guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy for low-risk neoplasms, while systematic lymphadenectomy is still considered for high-risk cases. This study aimed to compare the long-term survival of high-risk patients who were submitted to sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy. Methods Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer according to the 2021 European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology risk classification were retrospectively analyzed. The primary aim of the study was to compare the long-term overall survival and disease-free survival of high-risk endometrial cancer patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy versus systematic lymphadenectomy. A supplementary post-hoc survival analysis of cases with nodal metastasis was performed to compare sentinel lymph node and lymphadenectomy survival outcomes in this subset of patients. Results The study enrolled 237 patients with histologically proven high-risk endometrial cancer. Patients were followed up for a median of 31 months (IQR 18–40). During the follow-up, 38 (16.0%) patients had a recurrence, and 19 (8.0%) patients died. Disease-free survival (85.2% vs 82.8%; p=0.74) and overall survival (91.3% vs 92.6%; p=0.62) were not different between the sentinel lymph node alone and lymphadenectomy groups. Furthermore, neither overall survival (96.1% vs 91.4%; p=0.43) nor disease-free survival (83.7% vs 76.4%; p=0.46) were different among sentinel lymph node alone and lymphadenectomy groups in patients with nodal metastasis. Conclusions Sentinel lymph node mapping alone in high-risk endometrial cancer appears to be an oncologically safe technique over a long observational time. Systematic lymphadenectomy in this population does not offer a survival advantage.