Definition of compartment-based radical surgery in uterine cancer: modified radical hysterectomy in intermediate/high-risk endometrial cancer using peritoneal mesometrial resection (PMMR) by M Höckel translated to robotic surgery

Rainer Kimmig, Bahriye Aktas, Paul Buderath, Pauline Wimberger, Antonella Iannaccone, Martin Heubner, Rainer Kimmig, Bahriye Aktas, Paul Buderath, Pauline Wimberger, Antonella Iannaccone, Martin Heubner

Abstract

Background: The technique of compartment-based radical hysterectomy was originally described by M Höckel as total mesometrial resection (TMMR) for standard treatment of stage I and II cervical cancer. However, with regard to the ontogenetically-defined compartments of tumor development (Müllerian) and lymph drainage (Müllerian and mesonephric), compartments at risk may also be defined consistently in endometrial cancer. This is the first report in the literature on the compartment-based surgical approach to endometrial cancer. Peritoneal mesometrial resection (PMMR) with therapeutic lymphadenectomy (tLNE) as an ontogenetic, compartment-based oncologic surgery could be beneficial for patients in terms of surgical radicalness as well as complication rates; it can be standardized for compartment-confined tumors. Supported by M Höckel, PMMR was translated to robotic surgery (rPMMR) and described step-by-step in comparison to robotic TMMR (rTMMR).

Methods: Patients (n = 42) were treated by rPMMR (n = 39) or extrafascial simple hysterectomy (n = 3) with/without bilateral pelvic and/or periaortic robotic therapeutic lymphadenectomy (rtLNE) for stage I to III endometrial cancer, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification. Tumors were classified as intermediate/high-risk in 22 out of 40 patients (55%) and low-risk in 18 out of 40 patients (45%), and two patients showed other uterine malignancies. In 11 patients, no adjuvant external radiotherapy was performed, but chemotherapy was applied.

Results: No transition to open surgery was necessary. There were no intraoperative complications. The postoperative complication rate was 12% with venous thromboses, (n = 2), infected pelvic lymph cyst (n = 1), transient aphasia (n = 1) and transient dysfunction of micturition (n = 1). The mean difference in perioperative hemoglobin concentrations was 2.4 g/dL (± 1.2 g/dL) and one patient (2.4%) required transfusion. During follow-up (median 17 months), one patient experienced distant recurrence and one patient distant/regional recurrence of endometrial cancer (4.8%), but none developed isolated locoregional recurrence. There were two deaths from endometrial cancer during the observation period (4.8%).

Conclusions: We conclude that rPMMR and rtLNE are feasible and safe with regard to perioperative morbidity, thus, it seems promising for the treatment of intermediate/high-risk endometrial cancer in terms of surgical radicalness and complication rates. This could be particularly beneficial for morbidly obese and seriously ill patients.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Right infundibulopelvic ligament. Arteria ovarica and vena ovarica, the border to the right colon mesentery, and the lymphatic anastomosis to the right inframesenteric periaortic lymph nodes (arrows) are visible.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The structures of the female genital tract with reference to the embryologic Müllerian and mesonephric compartment. The accordant structures resected in endometrial cancer are colored dark green for the Müllerian Compartment (a) and blue for the mesonephric lymphatic drainage (b), ovarian and infundibulopelvic system). The parts of the Müllerian compartment that are only resected in stage II or III disease are colored light green. Modified from Höckel [14] and Hepp et al.[15], with permission of Elsevier and Urban & Schwarzenberg, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Separation of the right infundibulopelvic ligament from the right mesocolon and dissection of connecting vessels.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mobilization of the right infundibulopelvic ligament from laterally to medially and resection together with adherent periaortic nodes ventrally of the vena cava. The ureter and the vessels supplying the mesureter are preserved and mobilized.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Dissection of the ovarian artery and ovarian vein, at the aortic and cava level, respectively. The right periaortic nodes are left attached and represent the first draining nodes (compare to Figure  2b).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Same preparation of the left side. Following dissection of the ovarian vessels at their aortic and renal origin on the left, the infundibulopelvic ligament is dissected from the left mesocolon and followed through a prepared channel dorsally to the mesosigmoid. The left infrarenal periaortic nodes are kept in continuity to the ovarian vessel system as shown on the right.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Transferral of the left infundibulopelvic ligament. Following complete mobilization, the left infundibulopelvic ligament is pulled through the sigmoid ‘tunnel’ to the pelvis together with the left infrarenal periaortic nodes, to guarantee complete resection of the mesonephric ovarian drainage and avoiding division of the ligament.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Preparation of vascular anastomoses of the uterine and ovarian vessel system containing the accordant lymph drainage. Lateral peritoneal incision with preparation of the lateral aspect of the vascular mesometrium and division of the round ligament.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Ventral incision line to preserve the peritoneal covering the uterine and ovarian vessel system ensures complete resection.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Dorsal incision line caudally of the uterine vessels identified through the intact peritoneum.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Specimen of the uterus (ventral aspect) following rPMMR and rtLNE, showing the completely resected uterine and ovarian vessel system, without separation of connecting vessels and surrounding tissue. The uterine and ovarian pathways of lymph drainage are indicated by arrows. rPMMR, robotic peritoneal mesometrial resection; rtLNE, therapeutic lymphadenectomy.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Same specimen of the uterus (dorsal aspect) together with the pelvic nodes, kept in continuity with the uterine drainage system.

References

    1. Wright JD, Barrena Medel NI, Sehouli J, Fujiwara K, Herzog TJ. Contemporary management of endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2012;11:1352–1360. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60442-5.
    1. Johnson N, Bryant A, Miles T, Hogberg T, Cornes P. Adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer after hysterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:CD003175.
    1. Nickles Fader A, Seamon LG, Escobar PF, Frasure HE, Havrilesky LA, Zanotti KM, Secord AA, Boggess JF, Cohn DE, Fowler JM, Skafianos G, Rossi E, Gehrig PA. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy in women with high grade endometrial cancer: a multi-site study performed at high volume cancer centers. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;11:180–185. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.028.
    1. Brudie LA, Backes FJ, Ahmad S, Xiang Z, Finkler NJ, Bigsby GE IV, Cohn DE, O’Malley D, Fowler JM, Holloway RW. Analysis of disease recurrence and survival for women with uterine malignancies undergoing robotic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;11:309–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.005.
    1. Backes FJ, Brudie LA, Farrell MR, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ, Bigsby GE, O’Malley D, Cohn DE, Holloway RW, Fowler JM. Short- and long-term morbidity and outcomes after robotic surgery for comprehensive endometrial cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;11:546–551. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.02.023.
    1. Verheijen R, Zweemer R. Robotic surgery for gynaecologic cancer: an overview. Curr Oncol Rep. 2012;11:544–549. doi: 10.1007/s11912-012-0270-8.
    1. Höckel M, Horn L-C, Hentschel B, Höckel S, Naumann G. Total mesometrial resection: high resolution nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy based on developmentally defined surgical anatomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;11:791–803.
    1. Höckel M, Horn L-C, Manthey N, Braumann U-D, Wolf U, Teichmann G, Frauenschläger K, Dornhöfer N, Einenkel J. Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;11:683–692. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70100-7.
    1. Höckel M, Horn L-C, Tetsch E, Einenkel J. Pattern analysis of regional spread and therapeutic lymph node dissection in cervical cancer based on ontogenetic anatomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;11(1):168–174. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.419.
    1. Dahmann C, Oates AC, Brand M. Boundary formation and maintenance in tissue development. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;11:43–55.
    1. Höckel M. Cancer permeates locally within ontogenetic compartments: clinical evidence and implications for cancer surgery. Future Oncol. 2012;11(1):29–36. doi: 10.2217/fon.11.128.
    1. Kimmig R, Iannaccone A, Buderath P, Wimberger P, Heubner M. Definition of compartment based radical surgery in uterine cancer. Part I: therapeutic pelvic and periaortic lymphadenectomy by Michael Höckel translated to robotic surgery (rtLNE) ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2013;11:297921. doi: 10.1155/2013/297921.
    1. Kimmig R, Wimberger P, Buderath P, Aktas B, Iannaccone A, Heubner M. Definition of compartment based radical surgery in uterine cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer as “total mesometrial resection (TMMR)” by Michael Höckel translated to robotic surgery (rTMMR) World J Surg Oncol. 2013. In press.
    1. Höckel M. Do we need a new classification for radical hysterectomy? Insights in surgical anatomy and local tumor spread from human embryology. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;11(1 Suppl 1):106–112.
    1. Hepp H, Scheidel P, Monaghan JM. Lymphonodektomie in der Gynäkologischen Onkologie: Indikationen, Technik und Konsequenzen für die Therapieplanung. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1988.
    1. Ko EM, Funk MJ, Clark LH, Brewster WR. Did GOG99 and PORTEC1 change clinical practice in the United States? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;11:12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.01.020.
    1. Watari H, Mitamura T, Moriwaki M, Hosaka M, Ohba Y, Sudo S, Todo Y, Takeda M, Ebina Y, Sakuragi N. Survival and failure pattern of patients with endometrial cancer after extensive surgery including systematic pelvic and Para-aortic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;11:1585–1590. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a833cc.
    1. Gaddducci A, Cosio S, Fabrini MG, Fanucchi A, Barsotti C, Cristofani R, Greco C, Genazzani AR. Patterns of failures in endometrial cancer: clinicopathological variables predictive of the risk of local, distant and retroperitoneal failure. Anticancer Res. 2011;11:3483–3488.
    1. Carrara L, Gaducci A, Landoni F, Maggino T, Scambia G, Galletto L, Lissoni AA, Fuso L, Zola P, Sartori E. Could different follow-up modalities play a role in the diagnosis of asymptomatic endometrial cancer relapses?: an Italian multicentric retrospective analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;11:1013–1019. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31825ad3ee.
    1. Sartori E, Painetti B, Carrara A, Gambino A, Odicino F, Pecorelli S. Pattern of failure and value of follow-up procedures in endometrial and cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;11:S241–S247.
    1. Patsavas K, Woessner J, Gielda B, Rotmensch J, Yordan E, Bitterman P, Guirguis A. Optimal surgical debulking in uterine papillary serous carcinoma affects survival. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;11:581–585. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.048.
    1. Todo Y, Kato H, Minobe S, Okamoto K, Suzuki Y, Sudo S, Takeda M, Watari H, Kaneuchi M, Sakuragi N. Initial failure site according to primary treatment with or without Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;11:314–318. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.01.019.
    1. AlHilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;11:193–199. doi: 10.1007/s10147-013-0528-7.
    1. Barlin JN, Wysham WZ, Ferda AM, Khoury-Collado F, Cassella K, Alektiar KM, Hensley ML, Chi DS, Barakat RR, Abu-Rustum NR. Location of disease in patients who die from endometrial cancer. A study of 414 patients from a single institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;11:1527–1531.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe