Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in Europe and its management involves a variety of health professionals. In recent years, big discoveries were made concerning the management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, particularly in the field of molecular biology and minimally invasive surgery. This requires the continuous updating of guidelines and protocols over the years. In this paper, we aim to summarize and compare common points and disparities among protocols for management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer by leading international gynecological oncological societies. We therefore systematically report the parallel among the guidelines based on the various steps patients with endometrial cancer usually undergo. The comparison between American and European protocols revealed some relevant disparities, in particular regarding surgical staging, molecular biology application as a prognostic tool and follow up regimens. This could possibly cause differences in interpreting and applying protocols in clinical practice in small centers, leading to a lack of adherence to guidelines or even prompting a confusing mix of them.

Several genes associated with hereditary ovarian cancer have been discovered as a result of the work done with next generation sequencing. It is estimated that approximately 23% of ovarian carcinomas have a hereditary predisposition. The most common hereditary condition is represented by germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes that account for 20–25% of high grade serous ovarian cancer. A number of other hereditary ovarian cancers are associated with different genes, with a crucial role in the DNA damage response pathway, such as the mismatch repair genes in Lynch syndrome, TP53 in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, STK11 in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, CHEK2, RAD51, BRIP1, and PALB2. The goal of this manuscript is to summarize the published data regarding the molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of non-BRCA related hereditary ovarian cancer and to provide a tool that might be useful in discussing risk assessment, genetic testing, prevention strategies, as well as clinical and therapeutic implications for patients with ovarian cancer.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to analyze the available scientific evidence regarding the quality of life (QoL) and sexual function (SF) in patients affected by cervical cancer (CC) after surgical and adjuvant treatments. Materials and Methods: Preliminary research was conducted via electronic database (MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library) with the use of a combination of the following keywords: SF, QoL, and CC. The principal findings considered in the present review were the study design, the number of patients included in each study, the information about the malignancy (histology and stage of disease), the questionnaires administered, and the principal findings concerning SF and QoL. Results: All studies were published between 2003–2022. The studies selected consisted of one randomized control study, seven observational studies (three prospective series), and nine case control studies. The scores used were focused on SF, QOL, fatigue, and psychological aspects. All studies reported a decreased SF and QOL. The most developed questionnaires were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS), and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS). Discussion: All studies reported a decreased SF and QOL. In addition to the perception of body image, several factors coexist in influencing the outcomes such as the physical, hormonal, psychological. Conclusions: Sexual dysfunction after CC treatment has a multifactorial aetiology which negatively affects the quality of life. For these reasons, it is important to follow and support patients with a multidisciplinary team (doctors, nurses, psychologists, dieticians) before and after therapy. This type of tailored therapeutic approach should become a standard. Women should be informed about possible vaginal changes and menopausal symptoms after surgery and on the positive effects of psychological therapy.

Cervical cancer continues to have a significant incidence, despite global efforts in HPV vaccination campaigns. Managing this condition involves a diverse team of healthcare professionals. Research in this field is undergoing a period of great revolution in multiple areas, and international guidelines will soon have to adapt to new scientific evidence. This could be true mainly in locally advanced stages, and it could also be true for minimal invasive surgery. This paper aims to summarize and compare the most recent recommendations published by international gynecological oncological societies for patients with cervical cancer. From their comparison, common aspects and disagreements emerged, especially in the diagnostic pathway and follow-up strategies. Several issues that remain to be debated in the literature were addressed and compared, highlighting similarities and differences, from the role of the sentinel lymph node in early stages to that of the adjuvant hysterectomy in locally advanced tumors. On the surgical side, for this last subset of patients, currently, a laparotomic approach is recommended. At the same time, the advent of immunotherapy has just opened up new and promising scenarios in systemic treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer, and international guidelines will soon introduce it into their algorithms.

This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis aims to compare the surgery-related results and oncological outcomes between SH and RH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane to collect studies that compared oncological and surgery-related outcomes between SH and RH groups in patients with stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4. Seven studies comprising 6977 patients were included into our study. For oncological outcomes, we found no statistical difference in recurrence rate [OR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.50, 1.57); P = 0.68] and Overall Survival (OS) [OR = 1.23; 95% CI (0.69, 2.19), P = 0.48]. No difference was detected in the prevalence of positive LVSI and lymph nodes metastasis between the two groups. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the bladder injury [OR = 0.28; 95% CI (0.08, 0.94), P = 0.04] and bladder disfunction [OR = 0.10; 95% CI (0.02, 0.53), P = 0.007] of the RH group were higher compared to the SH group. This meta-analysis suggested there are no significant differences in terms of both recurrence rate and overall survival among patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer undergoing SH or RH, while the SH group has better surgery-related outcomes. These data confirm the need to narrow the indication for RH in early-stage cervical cancer.

PIPAC consists in delivering normothermic chemotherapy solution directly into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. Currently PIPAC is considered as a palliative treatment for patients suffering from non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. We performed a SR to assess tolerance and response of this novel method among patient with OC. We searched electronic database PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov. We only included clinical studies reporting PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer. This systematic review included 4 studies. In 3 studies all patients were pretreated with cytoreductive surgery, in 1 study surgery was performed in 8/34 (23 %) patients. Mean PCI at first PIPAC procedure ranged from 16.3 to 19.6. All studies reported the proportion of patients with ascites at the first PIPAC with a pooled rate of 48,3 %. Pooled rate of CTCAE Grade 3 toxicity calculated on the total number of PIPAC was 6 % and Grade 4 was 0.9 %. One study reported two cases of small bowel perforation related or potentially related to PIPAC. On study reported a cumulative survival after 400 days of 62 % and a mean actuarial survival time of all patients who underwent PIPAC of 442 days. In another study the mean time to progression was 144 days (95 % CI 122-168 days). This systematic review demonstrated that PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin appear to have a good safety profile with low toxicity and encouraging trend in terms of overall survival.