Dose-response effect of interleukin (IL)-1β, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interferon-γ on the in vitro production of epithelial neutrophil activating peptide-78 (ENA-78), IL-8, and IL-6 by human endometrial stromal cells

Purpose: The production of epithelial neutrophil activating peptide-78 (NA-78) and the interleukins IL-8 and IL-6 by endometrial stromal cells is stimulated by pro-inflammatory interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). IL-8 is suggested to play a role in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and in these women the peritoneal fluid concentrations of ENA-78 and IL-8 are increased. TNF-α has been tested together with interferon-γ because of their cooperative stimulation of IL-6. The release of IL-8, however, is inhibited with increasing interferon levels. The aim of the study was the analysis of the production of ENA-78, IL-6 and IL-8 by cultured human endometrial stromal cells in the presence of varying concentrations of IL-1β, TNF-α, and interferon-γ. Methods: Eutopic endometrial tissue was obtained from seven cycling, endometriosis-free women undergoing laparoscopy for reasons of infertility or pain. The release of ENA-78, IL-8 and IL-6 by the isolated and monolayer cultured stromal cell fraction in the presence of IL-1β (0.08 to 50ng/mL), TNF-α, and interferon-γ (both 20 to 500ng/mL) was determined. Results: IL-1β stimulated the production of IL-8, IL-6, and ENA-78 dose dependently from 0.08 to 2.0ng/mL (ENA-78) or to 10ng/mL (IL-8, IL-6); at 50ng/mL a decrease in release was observed for IL-8 and IL-6. TNF-α stimulation yielded a plateau between 20 and 100ng/mL. Interferon-γ stimulated IL-6 and inhibited IL-8 production above 20ng/mL. ENA-78 release was largely unaffected by interferon-γ. Conclusions: IL-1β and TNF-α stimulate stromal cytokine production cumulatively with different dose-response curves. The presence of interferon-γ has opposite effects on IL-8 and IL-6. TNF-α and interferon-γ should be investigated separately in future in vitro studies with endometrial cells and explant

Laparoscopy or laparotomy? A comparison of 240 patients with early-stage endometrial cancer

Background: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical treatment of early endometrial cancer, especially in obese women. Methods: The results obtained after laparoscopic surgical treatment of early endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 1 or 2) in patients between 1996 and 2007 were compared with an age- and tumour-matched historical group of patients treated with laparotomy between 1988 and 1996. All the patients underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic ± paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Results: Both groups included 120 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of early endometrial cancer. The postoperative diagnosis was endometrial cancer stage 1 or 2 for 89% of the cases in both groups. The mean operating time was 170min for the laparotomy group compared with 178min for the laparoscopy group (nonsignificant difference). The estimated intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater in the laparotomy group, and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group. Conclusions: The results show that early endometrial cancer can be treated effectively by laparoscopy. Because of this study's retrospective design, the results should be interpreted with caution. However, the advantages of this method for obese patients are evident. The age and weight of these patients should not be used as a contraindication for laparoscop

Prospective Multicenter Trial Assessing the Impact of Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion on Oncological Outcome in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery with the use of an Intrauterine Manipulator : Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion and Its Association with Oncological Outcome in Endometrial Cancer.

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

ASO Visual Abstract: Prospective Multicenter Trial Assessing the Impact of Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion on Oncological Outcome in Patients with Endometrial Cancer Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery with the Use of an Intrauterine Manipulator : Positive Peritoneal Cytology Conversion and Its Association with Oncological Outcome in Endometrial Cancer.

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

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Hormonal treatment; Prostate cancer; Side effectsTratamiento hormonal; Cáncer de próstata; Efectos secundariosTractament hormonal; Càncer de pròstata; Efectes secundarisBackground Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials