Importance Preoperative mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) is crucial as surgery can be complex and the quality of preoperative information is key. Objective To evaluate the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index (dPEI) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score in a multicenter cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, the surgical databases of 7 French referral centers were retrospectively queried for women who underwent surgery and preoperative MRI for DPE between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed in October 2022. Intervention Magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed using a dedicated lexicon and classified according to the dPEI score. Main outcomes and measures Operating time, hospital stay, Clavien-Dindo–graded postoperative complications, and presence of de novo voiding dysfunction. Results The final cohort consisted of 605 women (mean age, 33.3; 95% CI, 32.7-33.8 years). A mild dPEI score was reported in 61.2% (370) of the women, moderate in 25.8% (156), and severe in 13.1% (79). Central endometriosis was described in 93.2% (564) of the women and lateral endometriosis in 31.2% (189). Lateral endometriosis was more frequent in severe (98.7%) vs moderate (48.7%) disease and in moderate vs mild (6.7%) disease according to the dPEI ( P < .001). Median operating time (211 minutes) and hospital stay (6 days) were longer in severe DPE than in moderate DPE (operating time, 150 minutes; hospital stay 4 days; P < .001), and in moderate than in mild DPE (operating time; 110 minutes; hospital stay, 3 days; P < .001). Patients with severe disease were 3.6 times more likely to experience severe complications than patients with mild or moderate disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-8.9; P = .004). They were also more likely to experience postoperative voiding dysfunction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.6; P = .001). Interobserver agreement between senior and junior readers was good (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study suggest the ability of the dPEI to predict operating time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and de novo postoperative voiding dysfunction in a multicenter cohort. The dPEI may help clinicians to better anticipate the extent of DPE and improve clinical management and patient counseling.
Objective: The primary objective was to determine the profile of patients consulting in an emergency department and diagnosed with a gynecological cancer. Our secondary objective was to assess the potential impact on this diagnostic trajectory on survival.Method: A single-center retrospective study including patients managed for a gynecologic cancer between January 2018 and November 2020 in the Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Creteil was conducted. Patients characteristics were compared based on their diagnostic trajectory (emergency or referred to consultation). Precariousness was assessed using Pascal’s tool and the main socio-demographic and cancer associated factors were analyzed as prognostic factors.Results: Over the inclusion period, among the 753 eligible patients, 14.8% (112/753) had a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency department visit. There was a significant association between precariousness, rupture of gynecological follow-up, lack of participation in national screening campaigns and the risk of being diagnosed through the emergency pathway for all cancers studied (p = 0.001). There was no difference in terms of stage at diagnostic, management (according to current guidelines), or prognostic.Conclusion: Patients in a situation of precariousness are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer in an emergency department. Our study underlines the importance of precariousness as a factor determining the type of diagnostic management of gynecological cancer. Efforts should be made toward improving frail patients to primary care.
Recent studies have suggested a possible association between heparin treatment at the time of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing and a non-reportable result. However, these studies lack of proper methodology and had a low level of proof to firmly incriminate heparin. Our objective was to investigate further the relationship between heparin treatment and cfDNA test results.Two complementary approaches were used for the demonstration. First, we conducted a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients with a singleton pregnancy, screened for aneuploidies by using cfDNA, but with a non-reportable cfDNA result. We included patients between 2013 and 2016 including the patients from the DEPOSA study as controls. CfDNA testing was performed by massive parallel sequencing by using a whole-genome approach. A multiple logistic regression was used to account for the influence of the variables included. Second, we performed in vitro experiments on mimic samples containing increased concentrations of heparin.Of 9867 singleton pregnancies tested during the inclusion period, 58 (0.59%) had a non-reportable result and were compared to 295 control patients. Fifteen (25.9%) and 20 (6.8%) patients were treated with heparin in the group with a non-reportable cfDNA result and with a successful assay, respectively. In multivariable analysis, an increased calculated risk at the first-trimester combined screening (OR 28.8 CI 9.76-85.15, p < 0.001), maternal weight (OR 1.03, CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.01), and the presence of an autoimmune disease (OR 10.38, CI 1.62-66.53, p = 0.01) were the only characteristics associated with a non-reportable result. In vitro experiments showed that heparin had no impact on fetal fraction measurement or the final result, no matter what the dose tested.Treatment by heparin had no impact on cfDNA screening test for aneuploidies, while the presence of an autoimmune disorder is an independent predictor of a non-reportable result.
Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy are associated with increased risk of complications and are responsible for a significant proportion of morbidity and impaired quality of life following surgical management of pelvic malignancies. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) was developed as a trade-off between systematic and no lymphadenectomy to limit morbidity while conserving good oncological staging and outcomes. In this comprehensive review, we aimed to synthetize the anatomical basis of the SLN procedure in patients with pelvic malignancies from a surgical perspective. The reliability of the SLN procedure is based on the knowledge of the dissemination pathways for each type of tumors. The most recent understanding of the uterine lymphatic anatomy defined three consistent channels: an upper paracervical pathway (UPP) with draining medial external and/or obturator lymph nodes; a lower paracervical pathway (LPP) with draining internal iliac and/or presacral lymph nodes and the infundibulo-pelvic pathway (IPP) with a course along the fallopian tube and upper broad ligament via the infundibulo-pelvic ligament to its origin. In patients with endometrial cancer, most SLNs are located on the UPP pathway: obturator and external iliac whereas 80% of the SLNs in patients with cervical cancer are located in the external iliac, interiliac and obturator area. Surgical training is a key step toward improving detection rates and exhaustiveness of SLN research while reducing overall morbidity. This is all the more important that the indications for performing complete lymphadenectomy are becoming increasingly rare.
To evaluate a saliva diagnostic test (Endotest®) for endometriosis compared with the conventional algorithm.A cost-effectiveness analysis with a decision-tree model based on literature data.France.Women with chronic pelvic pain.Strategy I is the French algorithm, representing the comparator. For strategy II, all patients have an Endotest®. For strategy III, patients undergo ultrasonography to detect endometrioma and patients with no endometrioma detected have an Endotest®. For strategy IV, patients with no endometrioma detected on ultrasonography undergo pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect endometrioma and/or deep endometriosis. An Endotest® is then performed for patients with a negative result on MRI.Costs and accuracy rates and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Three analyses were performed with an Endotest® priced at €500, €750, and €1000. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted with Monte Carlo simulations.With an Endotest® priced at €750, the cost per correctly diagnosed case was €1542, €990, €919 and €1000, respectively, for strategies I, II, III and IV. Strategy I was dominated by all other strategies. Strategies IV, III and II were, respectively, preferred for a willingness-to-pay threshold below €473, between €473 and €4670, and beyond €4670 per correctly diagnosed case. At a price of €500 per Endotest®, strategy I was dominated by all other strategies. At €1000, the ICERs of strategies II and III were €724 and €387 per correctly diagnosed case, respectively, compared with strategy I.The present study demonstrates the value of the Endotest® from an economic perspective.
