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.

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.