RESUMO
PURPOSE: Molecular classification of endometrial cancer (EC) has become a promising information to tailor preoperatively the surgical treatment. We aimed to evaluate the rate of lymph node metastases (LNM) in patients with EC according to molecular profile. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA guidelines by searching in two major electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus), including original articles reporting lymph node metastases according to the molecular classification of EC as categorized in the ESGO-ESMO-ESP guidelines. RESULTS: Fifteen studies enrolling 3056 patients were included. Pooled prevalence LNM when considering only patients undergoing lymph node assessment was 4% for POLE-mutated (95%CI: 0-12%), 22% for no specific molecular profile (95% CI: 9-39%), 23% for Mismatch repair-deficiency (95%CI: 10-40%) and 31% for p53-abnormal (95%CI: 24-39%). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of LNM seems to be influenced by molecular classification. P53-abnormal group presents the highest rate of nodal involvement, and POLE-mutated the lowest.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Endométrio , Metástase Linfática , Humanos , Neoplasias do Endométrio/genética , Neoplasias do Endométrio/patologia , Feminino , Proteína Supressora de Tumor p53/genética , Mutação , Proteínas de Ligação a Poli-ADP-Ribose/genética , DNA Polimerase II/genética , Linfonodos/patologia , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genéticaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of discontinuation of mechanical bowel preparation in advanced ovarian cancer surgery within the context of the ERAS program. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery with simultaneous colon and/or rectal resection from January 2012 to November 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) was given (pre-ERAS) or not (post-ERAS). Patient characteristics, including duration of antibiotic treatment, surgical complexity, and incidence of surgical and nonsurgical complications, were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 114 patients who underwent colon and/or rectal resection were examined, of whom 39 received MBP and 75 did not receive MBP (NMBP). On comparison between the two groups, no significant differences were noted in the assessed patient characteristics, including mean age, FIGO stage, ASA class, BMI, or residual tumor. One patient (2.6%) in the MBP group, and 4 patients (5.3%) in the NMBP group experienced an anastomotic leakage (p = 0.11). No significant differences were found with respect to surgical site infection. (p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: MBP was not associated with any specific benefit for advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Gynecologic oncologists who use MBP should consider discontinuing this practice.