Abstract
Background
Minimally invasive surgery is the standard approach in early-stage endometrial cancer according to evidence showing no compromise in oncological outcomes, but lower morbidity compared with open surgery. However, there are limited data available on the oncological safety of the use of intrauterine manipulators in endometrial cancer.
Patients and Methods
This prospective multicenter study included patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic staging surgery with the use of an intrauterine manipulator. We obtained three different sets of peritoneal washings: at the beginning of the surgical procedure, after the insertion of the intrauterine manipulator, and after the closure of the vaginal vault. The rate of positive peritoneal cytology conversion and its association with oncological outcomes was assessed.
Results
A total of 124 patients were included. Peritoneal cytology was negative in 98 (group 1) and positive in 26 (group 2) patients. In group 2, 16 patients presented with positive cytology at the beginning of the surgery (group 2a) and 10 patients had positive cytology conversion during the procedure (group 2b). Recurrence rate was significantly different among the study groups, amounting to 9.2%, 25.0%, and 60.0% for groups 1, 2a, and 2b, respectively (p < 0.001). Group 1 showed the best recurrence-free and overall survival, followed by group 2a, while patients in group 2b had the worst oncological outcomes (p = 0.002 and p = 0.053, respectively). Peritoneal cytology was an independent predictor of recurrence and death on multivariable analysis.
Conclusion
A total of 8.1% of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery with intrauterine manipulation showed positive peritoneal cytology conversion associated with significantly worse oncological outcome.
Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological tumor in developed countries and has a generally favorable prognosis with an overall 5-year survival rate of 80%.1 Its primary treatment consists of surgery including total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and nodal staging, if indicated.2–4 Nowadays, minimally invasive surgery is the standard approach in early-stage endometrial cancer according to evidence of prospective randomized trials showing no compromise in oncological outcomes but lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery.2,5–12
In minimal invasive hysterectomy, the use of intrauterine manipulators is well established as it facilitates uterine mobilization, improves surgical field exposure, and provides a landmark for the colpotomy. Despite this, detailed information regarding its safety in oncological patients remains scarce, and clinical evidence substantiating the assumed mechanism of prevention of ureter injuries has not been found.13 Current studies on the effect of intrauterine manipulation during minimally invasive surgery on oncological outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer show contradicting results.14–19 However, the largest trial, on 2661 patients, revealed an association of the use of intrauterine manipulators with higher risk of recurrence, lower disease-free survival, and higher risk of death in endometrial cancer.20 The hypotheses generated are iatrogenic weakening of the myometrium through the manipulator leading to macroscopic uterine rupture and opening of the tumor into the peritoneal cavity or tumor spill via microscopic dissemination secondary to the increased pressure generated by the uterine device.20–22
Microscopic peritoneal metastasis and spreading outside the uterine cavity are suspected when cytopathological examination of pelvic washings demonstrates malignant cells. Positive peritoneal cytology is highly predictive of survival in multiple gynecological malignancies.23 In early-stage endometrial cancer, the prognostic importance of positive peritoneal cytology has long been debated,24 and in 2009, the Federation International de Gynecologie et Obstetrique (FIGO) removed cytology as a staging criteria from the endometrial cancer staging system.25 Nonetheless, multiple studies have proven the association of positive peritoneal cytology with decreased survival in patients with endometrial cancer.26–30 Furthermore, treatment of patients with positive cytology with adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with increased survival.26
There is evidence that intrauterine manipulation may result in retrograde seeding of the peritoneal cavity, as Sonoda et al. found higher incidence of positive peritoneal cytology in patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy with the use of an uterine manipulator compared with open surgery.31 Nevertheless, these findings have not been confirmed in subsequent studies.11,12,27 Moreover, it has not been investigated to date whether positive cytology conversion caused by uterine manipulation has an effect on oncological outcomes in endometrial cancer.
With our study, we aim to analyze the association of intrauterine manipulation, peritoneal cytology, and oncological outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer.
Patients and Methods
This is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. The experimental protocol was approved by the local ethics commission (reference number: 061/09) and meets the guidelines of the responsible governmental agency. All patients signed informed consent. Patients were included at the following three different centers in Switzerland: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Bern University Hospital, the Canton Hospital Schaffhausen, and the Canton Hospital Aarau.
The primary objective of the study was to assess the rate of positive peritoneal cytology conversion defined as an initially negative peritoneal cytology becoming positive during the course of the surgery. Secondary endpoints were recurrence rate, pattern of recurrence, time to first recurrence, and survival in relation to the peritoneal cytology. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older, were diagnosed with histologically confirmed and apparently early-stage endometrial cancer in preoperative workup, were willing to undergo minimally invasive staging procedure, and consented to follow-up. Exclusion criteria were the following: preoperative evidence of extrauterine disease including bulky lymph nodes, relapsed endometrial cancer at time of inclusion, presence of medical conditions contraindicating general anesthesia or standard laparoscopic surgery, concurrent diagnosis of ovarian cancer, and conversion to laparotomy. Routine preoperative imaging included transvaginal ultrasound and chest X-ray. Additional workup consisting of a thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan was performed in patients with high-grade or non-endometrioid histology and/or suspicion of extrauterine disease.
Study Intervention
All surgeries were performed using laparoscopy. Patients were positioned in the dorsal lithotomy position with both legs supported in stirrups. After achieving CO2 pneumoperitoneum, the whole abdominal cavity was visualized. Patients were tilted in the Trendelenburg position, and the first pelvic irrigation was conducted using 200 ml of lactated Ringer’s solution and sent for cytological evaluation (premanipulator washing). Bipolar coagulation of both fallopian tubes was performed before the insertion of the intrauterine manipulator. According to the surgeon’s choice, either the RUMI (CooperSurgical, Trumbull, CT) or Hohl (KARL STORZ AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) intrauterine manipulator was used. A second pelvic washing was obtained using 200 ml of lactated Ringer’s solution after the insertion of the manipulator and sent for cytologic evaluation (postmanipulator washing). Laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were then performed. The specimen was removed throughout the vagina and sent for frozen section evaluation. After closure of the vaginal vault, the third peritoneal cytology was collected with 200 ml of lactated Ringer’s solution (posthysterectomy washing). The indication for pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection was based on frozen section evaluation of the uterus according to international guidelines.1,37 All procedures were performed by surgeons with extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. The three different sets of peritoneal washings were reviewed by board-certified cytopathologists to determine the presence or absence of malignant cells. In case of indeterminate results on conventional hematoxylin–eosin staining, immunohistochemistry on pan-cytokeratin and Ber-EP4 was conducted.38,39 According to the results of the peritoneal cytology, we formed the following groups for further analysis: group 1, with negative peritoneal cytology, and group 2, with positive peritoneal cytology. Group 2 was further subdivided into group 2a, with positive premanipulator washing, and group 2b, with a negative premanipulator but positive postmanipulator and/or posthysterectomy washing. Adjuvant treatment was carried out according to national and international guidelines.1,37
Data Collection
Patient demographic, surgical, and histological data were collected prospectively in a central database. Demographic variables included age, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, parity, previous history of tubal sterilization, and preoperative workup with hysteroscopy. Surgical variables included type of uterine manipulator, surgical staging procedure, and occurrence of uterine perforation. From final pathology, we gathered peritoneal cytology, histological subtype, FIGO stage (2009), presence of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and tumor grading. We further collected data on adjuvant treatment, time of follow-up, recurrences, pattern of relapse, and vital status. Data on ethnicity have not been prospectively investigated.
Outcomes
All patients received follow-up examination according to international guidelines.1,37 Time to first recurrence was defined as time elapsed from primary staging surgery to first recurrence. Recurrence-free survival was defined as time from primary staging surgery to first recurrence or death of any cause. Overall survival was defined as time from primary staging surgery to death of any cause. Patients who were alive were censored at the date of their last follow-up. Recurrences were classified into locoregional, abdominal, and distant recurrences according to the first site of recurrence. Locoregional recurrences included vaginal and pelvic recurrences (including pelvic lymph nodes and local spread to rectum and bladder); abdominal recurrences refer to recurrences outside the pelvis and are consisting of peritoneal carcinomatosis, omental metastasis, and paraaortic lymph node involvement; distant recurrences entail lung, liver, bone, and brain metastases as well as lymph node involvement other than pelvic and paraaortic. Simultaneous locoregional and abdominal recurrence was considered abdominal recurrence; simultaneous abdominal and distant recurrence was considered distant recurrence; and simultaneous locoregional and distant recurrence was considered distant recurrence.
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
Assuming a rate of positive peritoneal cytology conversion of 6% during the course of surgery, with an alpha error of 0.05 and a statistical power of 85%, the estimated sample size was 120 patients. Statistical calculations were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistic version 25.0). Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables were reported as means and standard deviations. Patients, tumor, and treatment characteristics were analyzed using chi-square statistics or Fisher's exact test in case of categorical and t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the risk of recurrence and death with other prognostic factors. Any variables significant on univariable analysis were included in the multivariable analysis after testing for collinearity. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Data were collected at three national centers in Switzerland from October 2007 to December 2012. During the study period, 134 women underwent assessment for eligibility. Nine patients were excluded by reason of not fulfilling the inclusion criteria or owing to protocol injuries (nonadherence to the study intervention). The remaining 125 women met inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the present study. Of these, one patient with negative peritoneal cytology was lost to follow-up (Fig. 1). Mean age at surgery was 66.1 years, and mean BMI was 29.5 kg/m2. The majority of patients had low-grade tumors (75.0%) with endometrioid histology (87.9%) and stage I disease (78.2%). A total of 63.7% of patients underwent hysteroscopy prior to primary staging surgery, and 12.9% had a history of tubal sterilization. Table 1 presents the main baseline characteristics. All patients were operated with an intrauterine manipulating system: the RUMI® in 121 patients and the Hohl® in 3 patients. Uterine perforation occurred in two patients. Adjuvant treatment was performed in 64 (51.6%) patients: 36 patients were treated with adjuvant vaginal brachytherapy only, consisting of 28 with stage I, 6 with stage II, and 2 with stage III tumors. Of the two patients receiving vaginal brachytherapy and pelvic radiation, one had a stage III tumor and one a stage II tumor with high-grade histology. A total of 22 patients were treated with chemoradiation (15 with advanced stage disease and 7 with stage I disease and high-grade histology), and 5 patients with chemotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy (2 with advanced stage disease and 2 with stage I disease and high-grade histology).
Fig. 1.
Consort diagram of the study
Table 1.
Patients demographics and surgical and histological baseline characteristics
| Total | Group 1: negative cytology | Group 2a: positive cytology at beginning | Group 2b: positive cytology conversion | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients, N (%) | 124 (100) | 98 (79.0) | 16 (12.9) | 10 (8.1) | |
| Age at surgery, (years) mean ± SD | 66.1 ± 10.0 | 66.3 ± 10.1 | 63.6 ± 9.4 | 68.0 ± 9.4 | 0.495 |
| Postmenopausal, N (%) | 113 (91.1) | 89 (90.8) | 15 (93.8) | 9 (90.0) | 0.921 |
| Multiparous, N (%) | 100 (80.6) | 84 (85.7) | 11 (68.8) | 5 (50.0) | 0.011 |
| BMI, (kg/m2) mean ± SD | 29.5 ± 8.1 | 30.1 ± 8.3 | 28.2 ± 7.5 | 26.2 ± 6.7 | 0.266 |
| History of tubal sterilization, N (%) | 16 (12.9) | 13 (13.3) | 2 (12.5) | 1 (10.0) | 0.957 |
| Preoperative hysteroscopy, N (%) | 79 (63.7) | 64 (65.3) | 9 (56.3) | 6 (60.0) | 0.759 |
| Surgical lymph node staging performed, N (%) | 95 (76.6) | 76 (77.6) | 14 (87.5) | 5 (50.0) | 0.080 |
| Grade, N (%) | 0.014 | ||||
| G1 | 45 (36.3) | 32 (32.7) | 5 (31.3) | 8 (80.0) | |
| G2 | 48 (38.7) | 43 (43.9) | 4 (25.0) | 1 (10.0) | |
| G3 | 31 (25.0) | 23 (23.5) | 7 (43.8) | 1 (10.0) | |
| FIGO stage, N (%) | 0.020 | ||||
| I | 97 (78.2) | 81 (82.7) | 8 (50.0) | 8 (80.0) | |
| II | 7 (5.6) | 6 (6.1) | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| III | 17 (13.7) | 10 (10.2) | 5 (31.3) | 2 (20.0) | |
| IV | 3 (2.4) | 1 (1.0) | 2 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Positive lymph node status, N (%) | 15 (12.1) | 8 (8.2) | 7 (43.8) | 0 (0.0) | < 0.001 |
| Endometrioid histology, N (%) | 109 (87.9) | 86 (87.8) | 13 (81.3) | 10 (100) | 0.317 |
| LVSI positivity, N (%) | 26 (21.0) | 15 (15.3) | 8 (50.0) | 3 (30.0) | 0.021 |
| Adjuvant treatment, N (%) | 0.145 | ||||
| None | 58 (46.8) | 49 (50.0) | 3 (18.8) | 6 (60.0) | |
| VBT | 36 (29.0) | 29 (29.6) | 5 (31.3) | 2 (20.0) | |
| VBT + EBRT | 2 (1.6) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0) | |
| Combined EBRT + CT | 22 (17.7) | 16 (16.3) | 4 (25.0) | 2 (20.0) | |
| VBT + CT | 4 (3.2) | 2 (2.0) | 2 (12.5) | 0 (0) | |
| Missing | 2 (1.6) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0) | |
| Follow-up, (months) mean (95% CI) | 120 (116–125) | 121 (117–126) | 113 (96–130) | 114 (100–129) | 0.633 |
| Recurrence, N (%) | 19 (15.3) | 9 (9.2) | 4 (25.0) | 6 (60.0) | < 0.001 |
N number, SD standard deviation, CI confidence interval, BMI body mass index, FIGO Federation International de Gynecologie et Obstetrique, LVSI lymphovascular space invasion, VBT vaginal brachytherapy, EBRT external beam radiotherapy, CT chemotherapy
Peritoneal Cytology
In total, 43 peritoneal cytologies showed evidence of malignant cells, including 16 premanipulator, 11 postmanipulator, and 16 posthysterectomy washings. 33 of the 43 positive peritoneal cytologies showed indeterminate results on conventional hematoxylin–eosin staining and were diagnosed on the basis of immunohistochemistry. A total of 98 (79.0%) patients presented with a negative peritoneal cytology (group 1) while 26 (21.0%) patients had at least one positive peritoneal washing (group 2). There was a significant correlation between positive peritoneal cytology and the following histopathological characteristics: advanced FIGO stage (p = 0.025), lymph node involvement (p = 0.017), LVSI (p = 0.015), and myometrial invasion (p = 0.030). No significant association was seen between peritoneal cytology and uterine perforation (p = 0.623), type of manipulator (p = 0.497), preoperative workup with hysteroscopy (p = 0.310), grading (p = 0.056), and histological subtype (p = 0.554). In group 2, 16 patients had positive premanipulator cytology (group 2a) and 10 patients had initially negative peritoneal washings, converting either after insertion of the manipulator (two patients) or at the end of the surgical procedure (8 patients), forming group 2b. Patients in group 2b all had endometrioid histologies, and the majority (80%) had stage I disease (Table 1). Eight out of these ten positive converted cytologies showed evidence of malignant cells on the basis of immunohistochemistry only.
Oncological Outcome
Mean follow-up was 120.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 116.2–125.2] months, and a total of 19 (15.3%) patients experienced at least one recurrence. Recurrence rate differed significantly among the distinct study groups: in group 1, nine (9.2%) patients experienced recurrence, while it was four (25%) and six (60%) patients in group 2a and 2b, respectively (Table 1, p < 0.001). Mean time to first recurrence was 34.8 (95% CI 23.6–46.1) months for all recurrent patients. Patients with negative peritoneal washings had a significantly longer time to first recurrence of 50.4 (95% CI 33.9–67.0) months compared to 20.8 (95% CI 11.8–29.8) months in patients with positive cytologies (log-rank, p = 0.004; Fig. 2), including 21.0 (95% CI 10.8–31.2) months in group 2a and 20.7 (95% CI 6.5–34.9) months in group 2b. The majority (70.0%) of recurrences in group 2 occurred during the first two years after primary treatment, whereas it was only 22.2% of the recurrences in group 1 (p = 0.051). Four patients experienced recurrence more than five years after primary treatment; all of these had negative peritoneal cytology (p = 0.033).
Fig. 2.
Association between peritoneal cytology and mean time to first recurrence (log-rank, p = 0.004)
The 19 recurrences consisted of 5 locoregional, 6 abdominal, and 8 distant recurrences. In group 1, localization of recurrences was distributed as follows: four (44.4%) locoregional, two (22.2%) abdominal, and three (33.3%) distant. Group 2 comprises two (20%) locoregional, three (30%) abdominal, and five (50%) distant recurrences, respectively (p = 0.517). Patients with positive cytology showed numerically more nonlocoregional recurrences (80.0%) compared with patients with negative cytology (55.6%), although this observation was not statistically significant (p = 0.259; Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.
Association of pattern of recurrence and peritoneal cytology (χ2, p = 0.259)
Forty-one (33.1%) patients died during follow-up, involving 28 deaths (28.6%) in group 1, 8 (50.0%) in group 2a, and 5 (50%) in group 2b. Mean recurrence-free survival was 112.5 (95% CI 101.0–124.0) months for the whole study population, with the best survival for patients with negative cytology, followed by patients from group 2a and 2b with 123.8 (95% CI 112.9–134.8), 90.9 (95% CI 59.2–122.6), and 50.3 (95% CI 25.8–74.8) months, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.002). Similar associations were seen in overall survival, amounting to 127.7 (95% CI 118.3–137.1) months for the whole study cohort and 134.6 (95% CI 125.0–144.3), 106.5 (95% CI 72.6–140.3), and 95.7 (95% CI 64.7–126.7) months for groups 1, 2a, and 2b, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.053). The corresponding Kaplan–Meier curves are shown in Fig. 4. On univariable analysis, the following prognostic factors were significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence and death: positive peritoneal cytology, FIGO stage >I, and deep myometrial invasion. Lymph node involvement and age at surgery showed significant higher risk of death only. On multivariable analysis, positive peritoneal cytology remained a significant independent predictor of risk of recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 4.15, 95% CI 1.501–11.482, p = 0.006] and death (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.218–6.980, p = 0.016) and age at surgery a predictor of death (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.040–1.131, p = < 0.001) (Table 2).
Fig. 4.
Kaplan–Meier survival curves according to peritoneal cytology. A recurrence-free survival in patients with negative (group 1) and positive (group 2) peritoneal cytology (log-rank, p = 0.003); B recurrence-free survival in patients with negative peritoneal cytology (group 1), positive peritoneal cytology at the beginning of the procedure (group 2a) and positive cytology conversion (group 2b) (log-rank, p = 0.002); C overall survival in patients with negative (group 1) and positive (group 2) peritoneal cytology (log-rank, p = 0.016); D overall survival in patients with negative peritoneal cytology (group 1), positive peritoneal cytology at the beginning of the procedure (group 2a) and positive peritoneal cytology conversion (group 2b) (log-rank, p = 0.053)
Table 2.
Cox regression for univariable and multivariable analysis for risk of recurrence (a) and risk of death (b) according to clinicopathological features
| Clinicopathological factor | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p-value | HR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| (a) Risk of recurrence | ||||||
| Prior hysteroscopy | 0.116 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 2.42 | 0.804–7.311 | ||||
| Age at surgery (years) | 1.04 | 0.989–1.090 | 0.127 | – | – | – |
| Type of manipulator | 0.641 | – | – | – | ||
| RUMI (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Hohl | 0.05 | 0.000–17299 | ||||
| Intraoperative perforation | 0.678 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 0.05 | 0.000–77838 | ||||
| Peritoneal cytology | < 0.001 | 0.006 | ||||
| negative (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| positive | 5.44 | 2.205–13.42 | 4.15 | 1.501–11.482 | ||
| Histologic subtype | 0.517 | – | – | – | ||
| Endometrioid (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Non-endometrioid | 1.50 | 0.438–5.160 | ||||
| LVSI | 0.869 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 0.91 | 0.293–2.821 | ||||
| Grading | 0.276 | – | – | – | ||
| Low grade (G1, G2) (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| High grade (G3) | 1.68 | 0.660–4.273 | ||||
| Myometrial invasion | 0.043 | 0.195 | ||||
| < 50% (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| > 50% | 2.77 | 1.034–7.398 | 1.97 | 0.707–5.484 | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.017 | 0.594 | ||||
| I (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| > I | 3.05 | 1.224–7.599 | 1.34 | 0.451–4.016 | ||
| Lymph node status | 0.124 | – | – | – | ||
| Negative (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Positive | 2.46 | 0.782–7.743 | ||||
| History of tubal sterilization | 0.751 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 0.79 | 0.182–3.417 | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment | 0.113 | – | – | – | ||
| None (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| RT | 1.7 | 0.537–5.179 | ||||
| RT and CT | 3.3 | 0.901–9.695 | ||||
| Clinicopathological factor | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p-value | HR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| (b) Risk of death | ||||||
| Prior hysteroscopy | 0.353 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 1.37 | 0.707–2.644 | ||||
| Age at surgery (years) | 1.08 | 1.039–1.114 | < 0.001 | 1.08 | 1.040–1.131 | < 0.001 |
| Type of manipulator | 0.739 | – | – | – | ||
| RUMI (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Hohl | 1.30 | 0.298–6.037 | ||||
| Intraoperative perforation | 0.846 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 1.22 | 0.167–8.873 | ||||
| Peritoneal cytology | 0.019 | 0.016 | ||||
| Negative (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| Positive | 2.23 | 1.144–4.340 | 2.92 | 1.218–6.980 | ||
| Histologic subtype | 0.128 | – | – | – | ||
| Endometrioid (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Non-endometrioid | 1.89 | 0.834–4.262 | ||||
| LVSI | 0.814 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 1.09 | 0.526–2.264 | ||||
| Grading | 0.224 | – | – | – | ||
| Low grade (G1, G2) (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| High grade (G3) | 1.51 | 0.777–2.930 | ||||
| Myometrial invasion | 0.007 | 0.274 | ||||
| < 50% (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| > 50% | 2.38 | 1.262–4.477 | 1.51 | 0.723–3.138 | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.012 | 0.850 | ||||
| I (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| > I | 2.30 | 1.198–4.403 | 1.13 | 0.316–4.054 | ||
| Lymph node status | 0.016 | 0.372 | ||||
| Negative (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | 1.0 | Reference | ||
| Positive | 2.54 | 1.186–5.415 | 1.93 | 0.457–8.123 | ||
| History of tubal sterilization | 0.804 | – | – | – | ||
| No (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| Yes | 1.13 | 0.440–2.881 | ||||
| Adjuvant treatment | 0.138 | – | – | – | ||
| None (ref.) | 1.0 | Reference | ||||
| RT | 1.7 | 0.804–3.468 | ||||
| RT and CT | 2.1 | 0.979–4.638 | ||||
A statistically significant p-value below 0.05 was marked bold in the table
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, FIGO Federation International de Gynecologie et Obstetrique, LSVI lymphovascular space invasion, RT radiotherapy, CT chemotherapy
Discussion
The use of intrauterine manipulators during minimal invasive surgery for endometrial cancer remains controversial. In our multicenter, prospective, clinical trial, we evaluated the impact of intrauterine manipulation on peritoneal cytology and oncological outcome. Our results demonstrated positive peritoneal cytology conversion in 8.1% of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery with intrauterine manipulation. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation of recurrence rate with peritoneal cytology, and patients with converted peritoneal cytology showed the worst oncological outcomes.
In our cohort, 12.9% of patients presented with positive peritoneal cytology at the beginning of surgery. This is consistent with current literature, revealing positive peritoneal cytology rates in endometrial cancer ranging from 5% to 20%.26,29,30 In total, 8.1% of our study patients had initially negative peritoneal washings but converted during procedure. Previously published articles have shown a similar trend toward a higher rate of positive peritoneal cytology conversion after the use of intrauterine manipulators. However, for the most part, the results did not meet statistical significance,16,17,40 mainly owing to small sample sizes. Furthermore, the majority of the studies investigated only one additional peritoneal washing after insertion of the uterine manipulator.15,16,41 In our population, 80% of the converted cytologies were found only at the end of the surgery, suggesting that the issue is not mainly the insertion of the manipulator but rather the manipulation during the whole procedure. The only further study investigating three sets of peritoneal washings to date, by Lim et al., found two converting positive cytologies in 46 patients, one postmanipulator and one posthysterectomy—corresponding to a conversion rate of 4.3%.40 Since our cohort showed no association between uterine perforation and peritoneal cytology conversion, we assume rather a microscopic dissemination pathway on the basis of increased intrauterine pressure facilitating the ability of tumor cells to exceed the myometrial barrier and to spread outside the uterine cavity.20,21 The possible spread via the fallopian tubes was minimized in our study by performing bipolar coagulation of the fallopian tubes prior to the insertion of the manipulator.
Our results demonstrated significantly higher recurrence rates in patients with positive peritoneal cytology and highest recurrence rates in group 2b (Table 1) despite highly favorable histological features. Accordingly, recurrence-free and overall survival were best in patients with negative peritoneal cytology and worst in group 2b (Fig. 4). While the association of positive peritoneal cytology with decreased survival has been shown by multiple studies,26–30 no study has explored the impact of cytology conversion on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer to date. On the other hand, several studies investigating the impact of intrauterine manipulators on oncological outcomes revealed no significant association,15–18,42,43 except for the largest study by Padilla et al.20 This might be due to the generally low risk of recurrence in endometrial cancer, making larger sample sizes necessary to detect significant differences. Nevertheless, in some of the above-mentioned studies, there was a trend toward worse oncological outcomes with the use of intrauterine manipulators, although not statistically significant.15-17
Mean time to first recurrence was 34.8 months in our study. Time to first recurrence was significantly shorter in patients with positive cytologies (Fig. 2), in line with the assumption that a short time to recurrence in endometrial cancer does not necessarily indicate treatment resistance but may be related to the persistence of microscopic disease after primary treatment.44
A trend toward more nonlocoregional recurrences related to the use of intrauterine manipulators was described both in our cohort (Fig. 3) and the study of Padilla et al.20 We interpret this in the context of the pressure effect of the manipulator on the tumor microenvironment: the increased pressure inside the uterine cavity potentially helps to spread tumor cells into the blood circulation intraoperatively.
Clinical Relevance of Our Findings
Our study supplies crucial knowledge for understanding the impact of the use of intrauterine manipulators on oncological outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer. The results of this study provide further evidence to fill the remaining gaps between uterine manipulation, peritoneal cytology, and recurrence in endometrial cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of intrauterine manipulators may lead to positive peritoneal cytology conversion, which in turn enhances recurrence rate. This correlation is different from hysteroscopy, where current literature reports a higher frequency of positive peritoneal cytology but without impact on oncological outcome.32–36 Potentially, hysteroscopy results in a rather passive rinsing out of tumor cells into the abdominal cavity while intrauterine manipulation leads to trauma and inflammation possibly triggering disease recurrence by shedding of tumor cells into the blood and lymphatic circulation.45 In addition, in hysteroscopy, there is a lack of prospective data showing the relationship between hysteroscopy, peritoneal cytology, and oncological outcome.
Minimal invasive surgery certainly remains the standard of care in endometrial cancer treatment after the results of prospective randomized trials proving its oncological safety.5,6 Unfortunately, these trials did not report on the use of uterine manipulators. Since there are no data proving that the use of uterine devices reduces surgical complications,13 and current evidence supports that there is a safe possibility to perform hysterectomy without the use of intrauterine manipulators,46,47 we should consider abandoning intrauterine manipulators in surgery for endometrial cancer. Particularly, after the unexpected results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial where tumor spill secondary to the use of an uterine manipulator was named as one of the possible contributors to the worse oncological outcome in patients with cervical cancer after minimally invasive surgery.21,48 However, larger prospective clinical trials, including a control group operated without intrauterine manipulator, are needed to confirm our results.
Strengths and Weaknesses
In our opinion, the major strengths of this study include its prospective and multicenter design as well as the long-term follow-up. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study exploring the impact of cytology conversion on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer to date. One of its most interesting aspects is the inclusion of a third cytology, collected at the end of surgery, thereby not only investigating the effect of the insertion of the manipulator but also the impact of the intrauterine manipulation during the whole procedure. The most important shortcoming of the current study is the lack of a control group operated without intrauterine manipulator. Furthermore, statistical hypothesis and sample size were not calculated for oncological outcomes. Subsequently, our results cannot establish the responsibility of the intrauterine manipulator for the cytology conversion and the worse oncological outcome.
Conclusions
This multicenter prospective trial showed a rate of 8.1% of peritoneal cytology conversion in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing minimal invasive surgical staging procedure with the use of an intrauterine manipulator. Our results revealed a strong correlation of recurrence rate with peritoneal cytology, and patients with converted peritoneal cytology presented with the worst oncological outcomes.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the patients and their families participating in this study.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Bern.
DISCLOSURE
All the authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Change history
11/19/2022
Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.
References
- 1.Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(1):16–41. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(1):12–39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Papadia A, Imboden S, Siegenthaler F, et al. Laparoscopic indocyanine green sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(7):2206–2211. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5090-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Signorelli M, Lissoni AA, Cormio G, et al. Modified radical hysterectomy versus extrafascial hysterectomy in the treatment of stage I endometrial cancer: results from the ILIADE randomized study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(12):3431–3441. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0736-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(7):695–700. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, et al. Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(12):1224–1233. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Malur S, Possover M, Michels W, Schneider A. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal versus abdominal surgery in patients with endometrial cancer—a prospective randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2001 doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.6069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tozzi R, Malur S, Koehler C, Schneider A. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in endometrial cancer: first analysis of survival of a randomized prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005 doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2005.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zullo F, Palomba S, Falbo A, et al. Laparoscopic surgery vs laparotomy for early stage endometrial cancer: long-term data of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.10.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mourits MJE, Bijen CB, Arts HJ, et al. Safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):763–771. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70143-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Reijntjes B, van Suijlichem M, Woolderink JM, et al. Recurrence and survival after laparoscopy versus laparotomy without lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: long-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.12.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.van den Haak L, Alleblas C, Nieboer TE, Rhemrev JP, Jansen FW. Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(5):1003–1011. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3727-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Marcos-Sanmartín J, LópezFernández JA, Sánchez-Payá J, et al. Does the type of surgical approach and the use of uterine manipulators influence the disease-free survival and recurrence rates in early-stage endometrial cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(9):1722–1726. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.GueliAlletti S, Perrone E, Fedele C, et al. A multicentric randomized trial to evaluate the ROle of Uterine MANipulator on Laparoscopic/Robotic HYsterectomy for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer: The ROMANHY trial. Front Oncol. 2021;11:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.720894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lee M, Kim YT, Kim SW, Kim S, Kim JH, Nam EJ. Effects of uterine manipulation on surgical outcomes in laparoscopic management of endometrial cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(2):372–379. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182788485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tinelli R, Cicinelli E, Tinelli A, Bettocchi S, Angioni S, Litta P. Laparoscopic treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer with and without uterine manipulator: Our experience and review of literature. Surg Oncol. 2016;25(2):98–103. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2016.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Uccella S, Bonzini M, Malzoni M, et al. The effect of a uterine manipulator on the recurrence and mortality of endometrial cancer: a multi-centric study by the Italian Society of Gynecological Endoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(6):592.e1–592.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID. The role of uterine manipulators in endometrial cancer recurrence after laparoscopic or robotic procedures. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(5):1003–1009. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-3031-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Padilla-Iserte P, Lago V, Tauste C, et al. Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(1):65.e1–65.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Dietl A, Klar M, Aumann K. Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: is the uterine manipulator a risk factor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):537–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Machida H, Casey JP, Garcia-Sayre J, et al. Timing of intrauterine manipulator insertion during minimally invasive surgical staging and results of pelvic cytology in endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(2):234–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Zuna RE, Behrens A. Peritoneal washing cytology in gynecologic cancers: long-term follow-up of 355 patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(14):980–987. doi: 10.1093/jnci/88.14.980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sutton GP. The significance of positive peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 1990;4(6):21–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obs. 2009;105(2):103–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Seagle BLL, Alexander AL, Lantsman T, Shahabi S. Prognosis and treatment of positive peritoneal cytology in early endometrial cancer: matched cohort analyses from the national cancer database. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):329.e1–329.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Garg G, Gao F, Wright JD, Hagemann AR, Mutch DG, Powell MA. Positive peritoneal cytology is an independent risk-factor in early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.09.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fader AN, Java J, Tenney M, et al. Impact of histology and surgical approach on survival among women with early-stage, high-grade uterine cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(3):460–465. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lee B, Suh DH, Kim K, No JH, Kim YB. Influence of positive peritoneal cytology on prognostic factors and survival in early-stage endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(8):711–717. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Matsuo K, Yabuno A, Hom MS, et al. Significance of abnormal peritoneal cytology on survival of women with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(2):301–309. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.02.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sonoda Y, Zerbe M, Smith A, Lin O, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ. High incidence of positive peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(3):378–382. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2000.6079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Takač I, Žegura B. Office hysteroscopy and the risk of microscopic extrauterine spread in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107(1):94–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.05.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Revel A, Tsafrir A, Anteby SO, Shushan A. Does Hysteroscopy produce intraperitoneal spread of endometrial cancer cells? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;59(4):280–284. doi: 10.1097/01.OGX.0000120173.09136.4A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Obermair A, Geramou M, Gücer F, et al. Impact of hysteroscopy on disease-free survival in clinically stage I endometrial cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2000;10(4):275–279. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2000.010004275.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Polyzos NP, Mauri D, Tsioras S, Messini CI, Valachis A, Messinis IE. Intraperitoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer cells after hysteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(2):261–267. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181ca2290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Chang YN, Zhang Y, Wang YJ, Wang LP, Duan H. Effect of hysteroscopy on the peritoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer cells: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):957–961. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.1146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Emons G, Steiner E, Vordermark D, et al. Interdisciplinary diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer. Guideline (S3-Level, AWMF registry number 032/034-OL, April 2018)—part 2 with recommendations on the therapy and follow-up of endometrial cancer, palliative care, ps. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018;78(11):1089–1109. doi: 10.1055/a-0715-2964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Selves J, Long-Mira E, Mathieu MC, Rochaix P, Ilié M. Immunohistochemistry for diagnosis of metastatic carcinomas of unknown primary site. Cancers (Basel). 2018 doi: 10.3390/cancers10040108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Oda T, Ogata S, Kawaguchi S, et al. Immunocytochemical utility of claudin-4 versus those of Ber-EP4 and MOC-31 in effusion cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016 doi: 10.1002/dc.23476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lim S, Kim HS, Lee KB, Yoo CW, Park SY, Seo SS. Does the use of a uterine manipulator with an intrauterine balloon in total laparoscopic hysterectomy facilitate tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity in patients with endometrial cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18(5):1145–1149. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.01165.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL. Laparoscopic surgery does not increase the positive peritoneal cytology among women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100(2):361–364. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Marcos-Sanmartín J, LópezFernández JA, Sánchez-Payá J, et al. Does the type of surgical approach and the use of uterine manipulators influence the disease-free survival and recurrence rates in early-stage endometrial cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(9):1722–1726. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Segarra-Vidal B, Dinoi G, Zorrilla-Vaca A, et al. Minimally invasive compared with open hysterectomy in high-risk endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000004606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Legge F, Restaino S, Leone L, et al. Clinical outcome of recurrent endometrial cancer: Analysis of post-relapse survival by pattern of recurrence and secondary treatment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(2):193–200. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Yamaguchi K, Takagi Y, Aoki S, Futamura M, Saji S. Significant detection of circulating cancer cells in the blood by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction during colorectal cancer resection. Ann Surg. 2000;232(1):58–65. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200007000-00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Abdel Khalek Y, Bitar R, Christoforou C, et al. Uterine manipulator in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: safety and usefulness. Updates Surg. 2020;72(4):1247–1254. doi: 10.1007/s13304-019-00681-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Kavallaris A, Chalvatzas N, Kelling K, Bohlmann MK, Diedrich K, Hornemann A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy without uterine manipulator: description of a new technique and its outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(5):1053–1057. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1494-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]