Resumo Objetivo Opresente estudotemcomo objetivo obter informações demográficas básicas, o nível de interesse e de treinamento em ginecologia oncológica entre obstetras e ginecologistas (OB-GYNs) brasileiros para criar um perfil destes profissionais. Métodos Umquestionário online foi enviado a 16.008 ginecologistas filiados à Federação Brasileira de Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (FEBRASGO). Nós consideramos ginecologistas dedicados à oncologia ginecológica (OB-GYNsONCO) aqueles que referiram atuar em > 50% de sua prática diária com o tratamento do câncer feminino. Resultados Um total de 1.608 (10%) dos 16.008 membros da FEBRASGO responderam ao questionário. Os OB-GYNs estão concentrados nos estados do sul e sudeste do Brasil. A oncologia ginecológica foi considerada a 8ª área de maior interesse em ginecologia entre os OB-GYNs. Um total de 95 (5,9%) dos OB-GYNs foram considerados ginecologistas dedicados à oncologia ginecológica (OB-GYNs ONCO). Obstetras e ginecologistas estão ativamente envolvidos no tratamento do câncer: > 60% deles dedicam até 25% de sua prática diária à oncologia. O papel dosmédicos na triageme na prevenção, no diagnóstico, no tratamento de lesões pré-cancerosas e em procedimentos cirúrgicos de baixa complexidade é notavelmente alto. Ginecologistas dedicados à oncologia ginecológica no Brasil têm umperíodo de treinamento emoncologia ginecológica heterogêneo, não padronizado e curto. Estes profissionais tiveram um papel mais significativo na realização de operações de média e alta complexidade em comparação com OB-GYNs (65,2% versus 34%, e 47,3% versus 8,4%, respectivamente). Conclusão Os papéis dos OB-GYN e dos OB-GYNs ONCO parecem ser complementares. Os OB-GYNs frequentemente atuam emtriageme prevenção e em procedimentos cirúrgicos de baixa complexidade, enquanto os OB-GYNs ONCO estão mais envolvidos em casos demais alta complexidade. Estratégias para elevar os padrões de treinamento em oncoginecologia e incentivar o reconhecimento da oncologia ginecológica como uma subespecialidade devem ser adotadas no Brasil.

Abstract Objective The present study aims to obtain basic demographic information, the level of interest and of training in gynecology oncology among Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists (OB-GYNs) to create a professional profile. Methods An online questionnaire was sent to 16,008 gynecologists affiliated to the Brazilian Federation of Associations of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FEBRASGO, in the Portuguese acronym). We considered gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology (OB-GYNs ONCO) those who self-reported that > 50% of their daily practice consists in working with women’s cancer care. Results A total of 1,608 (10%) of 16,008 FEBRASGO members responded. The OBGYNs are concentrated in the southern and southeastern states of Brazil. Gynecologic oncology was considered the 8th greatest area of interest in gynecology among the OBGYNs. A total of 95 (5.9%) of the OB-GYNs were considered OB-GYNs ONCO. Obstetricians and gynecologists are actively engaged in cancer care: > 60% of them dedicate up to 25% of their daily practice to oncology. The role of the physicians in screening and prevention, diagnosis, in the treatment of precancerous lesions, and in low complexity surgical procedures is notably high. Gynecologists dedicated to gynecologic oncology in Brazil have a heterogeneous, nonstandardized and short training period in gynecologic oncology. These professionals had a more significantly role in performing medium- and high-complexity operations compared with OB-GYNs (65.2% versus 34%, and 47.3% versus 8.4%, respectively). Conclusion The role of OB-GYNs and of OB-GYNs ONCO appears to be complementary. Obstetricians and gynecologists actmore often in screening and prevention and in low-complexity surgical procedures, whereas OB-GYNs ONCO are more involved in highly complex cases. Strategies to raise standards in cancer training and to encourage the recognition of gynecologic oncology as a subspecialty should be adopted in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the number of surgical advances and innovations in techniques over time, radical vulvectomy frequently results in substantial loss of tissue that cannot be primarily closed without tension, the mobilization of surrounding tissues or even the rotation of myocutaneous flaps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of leaving the surgical vulvar open wound for secondary healing in situations where primary closure of the vulvar wound is not possible. METHODS: This case-control pilot study analyzed 16 women with a diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva who first underwent inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy, 6-week sessions of chemotherapy and 25 daily sessions of radiotherapy. Afterward, excision of the vulvar lesion with free margins was performed between January 2011 and July 2017. Twelve patients underwent primary closure of the wound (control), and in 4 patients, the surgical wound was left open for secondary healing by means of a hydrofiber (case). The inclusion criteria were a) FIGO-2009 stage II up to IIIC; b) squamous cell carcinoma; and c) no evidence of pelvic or extrapelvic disease or pelvic nodal involvement. The exclusion criteria were extrapelvic disease or pelvic nodal involvement, another primary cancer, or a poor clinical condition. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02067052. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at the time of the intervention was 62.1. The distribution of the stages was as follows: II, n=6 (37 %); IIIA, n=1 (6%), IIIB, n=1 (6%) and IIIC, n=8 (51%). The mean operative time was 45 minutes. The hospital stay duration was 2 days. Full vulvar healing occurred after an average of 30 days in the control group and after an average of 50 days in the case group. CONCLUSION: A secondary healing strategy may be an option for the treatment of vulvar cancer in situations of non-extensive surgical wounds when primary closure of the wound is not possible.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and costs after the implementation of robotic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer, compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study from 2015 to 2017, eighty-nine patients with endometrial carcinoma that was clinically restricted to the uterus were randomized in robotic surgery (44 cases) and traditional laparoscopic surgery (45 cases). We compared the number of retrieved lymph nodes, total time of surgery, time of each surgical step, blood loss, length of hospital stay, major and minor complications, conversion rates and costs. RESULTS: The ages of the patients ranged from 47 to 69 years. The median body mass index was 31.1 (21.4-54.2) in the robotic surgery arm and 31.6 (22.9-58.6) in the traditional laparoscopic arm. The median tumor sizes were 4.0 (1.5-10.0) cm and 4.0 (0.0-9.0) cm in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery groups, respectively. The median total numbers of lymph nodes retrieved were 19 (3-61) and 20 (4-34) in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery arms, respectively. The median total duration of the whole procedure was 319.5 (170-520) minutes in the robotic surgery arm and 248 (85-465) minutes in the traditional laparoscopic arm. Eight major complications were registered in each group. The total cost was 41% higher for robotic surgery than for traditional laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer presented equivalent perioperative morbidity to that of traditional laparoscopic surgery. The duration and total cost of robotic surgery were higher than those of traditional laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the postoperative pathological characteristics of hysterectomy specimens, preoperative cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels and imaging modalities in patients with endometrial cancer and to build a risk matrix model to identify and recruit patients for retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. METHODS: A total of 405 patients undergoing surgical treatment for endometrial cancer were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Clinical (age and body mass index), laboratory (CA-125), radiological (lymph node evaluation), and pathological (tumour size, grade, lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node metastasis, and myometrial invasion) parameters were used to test the ability to predict lymph node metastasis. Four parameters were selected by logistic regression to create a risk matrix for nodal metastasis. RESULTS: Of the 405 patients, 236 (58.3%) underwent complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, 96 (23.7%) underwent nodal sampling, and 73 (18%) had no surgical lymph node assessment. The parameters predicting nodal involvement obtained through logistic regression were myometrial infiltration >50%, lymphovascular space involvement, pelvic lymph node involvement by imaging, and a CA-125 value >21.5 U/mL. According to our risk matrix, the absence of these four parameters implied a risk of lymph node metastasis of 2.7%, whereas in the presence of all four parameters the risk was 82.3%. CONCLUSION: Patients without deep myometrial invasion and lymphovascular space involvement on the final pathological examination and with normal CA-125 values and lymph node radiological examinations have a relatively low risk of lymph node involvement. This risk assessment matrix may be able to refer patients with high-risk parameters necessitating lymphadenectomy and to decide the risks and benefits of lymphadenectomy.

RESUMO A cirurgia robótica para carcinoma do colo do útero apresenta vantagens quando comparada com cirurgias laparotômicas ou laparoscópicas. A cirurgia robótica de portal único tem muitas vantagens quando comparada com cirurgias de múltiplos acessos, porém a segurança e a viabilidade deste procedimento ainda não estão estabelecidas para cirurgias oncológicas radicais. Apresentamos um caso de carcinoma de colo do útero, tratado por histerectomia radical, identificação e biópsia de linfonodo sentinela e linfadenectomia pélvica realizada totalmente por cirurgia robótica de acesso único. A paciente recuperou-se bem e recebeu alta no primeiro dia pós-operatório.

ABSTRACT Robotic surgeries for cervical cancer have several advantages compared with lapa-rotomic or laparoscopic surgeries. Robotic single-site surgery has many advantages compared with the multiport approach, but its safety and feasibility are not established in radical oncologic surgeries. We report a case of a Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1 cervical carcinoma whose radical hysterectomy, sentinel lymph node mapping, and lymph node dissection were entirely performed by robotic single-site approach. The patient recovered very well, and was discharged from the hospital within 24 hours.

OBJECTIVE : The aim of this study was to determine the lymph node status in a large cohort of women with endometrial cancer from the public health system who were referred to an oncology reference center in Brazil to identify candidates for the omission of lymphadenectomy based on clinicopathological parameters. METHODS : We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 310 women with endometrial cancer (255 endometrioid, 40 serous, and 15 clear cell tumors) treated between 2009 and 2014. We evaluated the histological type, grade (low vs. high), tumor size (cm), depth of myometrial invasion (≤50%, >50%) and lymphovascular space invasion to determine which factors were correlated with the presence of lymph node metastasis. RESULTS : The factors related to lymph node involvement were tumor size (p=0.03), myometrial invasion (p<0.01), tumor grade (p<0.01), and lymphovascular space invasion (p<0.01). The histological type was not associated with the nodal status (p=0.52). Only twelve of 176 patients (6.8%) had low-grade endometrioid carcinoma, tumor size ≤2 cm and <50% myometrial infiltration. CONCLUSIONS : The omission of lymphadenectomy based on the histological type, grade, tumor size and depth of myometrial invasion is not likely to have a large impact on the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer in our population because most patients present with large and advanced tumors. New strategies are proposed that prioritize hysterectomy performed in a general hospital as soon as possible after diagnosis, followed by an evaluation of the need for lymph node dissection at a reference center.

OBJECTIVE: Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms is essential for creating a system for patient referrals. Therefore, the contributions of the tumor markers CA125 and human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) as well as the risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk malignancy index (RMI) values were considered individually and in combination to evaluate their utility for establishing this type of patient referral system. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed with ovarian masses through imaging analyses (n = 128) were assessed for their expression of the tumor markers CA125 and HE4. The ROMA and RMI values were also determined. The sensitivity and specificity of each parameter were calculated using receiver operating characteristic curves according to the area under the curve (AUC) for each method. RESULTS: The sensitivities associated with the ability of CA125, HE4, ROMA, or RMI to distinguish between malignant versus benign ovarian masses were 70.4%, 79.6%, 74.1%, and 63%, respectively. Among carcinomas, the sensitivities of CA125, HE4, ROMA (pre-and post-menopausal), and RMI were 93.5%, 87.1%, 80%, 95.2%, and 87.1%, respectively. The most accurate numerical values were obtained with RMI, although the four parameters were shown to be statistically equivalent. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in accuracy between CA125, HE4, ROMA, and RMI for differentiating between types of ovarian masses. RMI had the lowest sensitivity but was the most numerically accurate method. HE4 demonstrated the best overall sensitivity for the evaluation of malignant ovarian tumors and the differential diagnosis of endometriosis. All of the parameters demonstrated increased sensitivity when tumors with low malignancy potential were considered low-risk, which may be used as an acceptable assessment method for referring patients to reference centers.

INTRODUCTION: Serous carcinomas are the most frequent histologic type of ovarian and peritoneal cancers, and can also be detected in the endometrium and fallopian tubes. Serous carcinomas are usually high-grade neoplasms when diagnosed, yet the identification of an associated precursor lesion remains challenging. Pathological examination of specimens obtained from prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomies that were performed for patients harboring BRCA1/2 mutations suggests that high-grade serous carcinomas may arise in the fallopian tubes rather than in the ovaries. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the presence and extent of fallopian tube involvement in cases of serous pelvic carcinomas. METHODS: Thirty-four cases of serous pelvic carcinoma with clinical presentations suggesting an ovarian origin were analyzed retrospectively. Histologic samples of fallopian tube tissues were available for these cases and were analyzed. Probable primary site, type of tubal involvement, tissues involved in the neoplasia and vascular involvement were evaluated. RESULTS: Fallopian tube involvement was observed in 24/34 (70.6%) cases. In 4 (11.8%) of these cases, an intraepithelial neoplasia was present, and therefore these cases were hypothesized to be primary from fallopian tubes. For an additional 7/34 (20.6%) cases, a fallopian tube origin was considered a possible primary. CONCLUSIONS: Fallopian tubes can be the primary site for a subset of pelvic high-grade serous carcinomas.