Background: Surgical staging including lymph node dissection (LND) is considered the gold standard method of evaluating LN status and guiding adjuvant therapy in endometrial cancer (EC). The standard surgical treatment of EC includes systematic LND, which is associated with morbidity. Consequently, there is debate weighing the risks and benefits of LND. Objectives: To evaluate the role of LND in all stages of EC. Search Strategy: Systematic search of MEDLINE up to 9th January 2020 including references of relevant studies. Selection Criteria: Published literature in English describing LND in EC. Data Collection and Analysis: 176 articles were screened by title and abstract to select those describing roles of LND in EC. Main Results: We confirmed the diagnostic role of LND and the benefits of risk stratifying early-stage EC patients, despite variations in stratification systems. Low and high-risk groups have well-established guidelines. The role of LND remains controversial in intermediate and high-intermediate risk groups. Sentinel lymph node dissection seems promising to prevent under-/overtreatment. In all risk groups, the prognostic role of LND is well-understood however therapeutic use is debatable. In most stages of advanced EC, LND is beneficial, except for non-bulky nodal disease. Variation exists in what constitutes adequate LN counts, targets and surgical methods. Conclusions: International standardisation of the definition of LND and further adoption of sentinel lymph node algorithms is required. Future research should investigate the need to stratify for bulky and non-bulky nodal disease in advanced EC. New RCTs are needed to guide revaluation of the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO 2016 guidelines. Funding There were no costs associated with conducting or writing this review.

Background Haemodynamic assessment in and before pregnancy is becoming increasingly important in relation to pregnancy complications and outcomes. Different methodologies exist but there is no gold-standard technique for non-invasive measurement of cardiac output (CO). We sought to assess two methods of CO measurement in healthy women undergoing in vitro fertilisation cycles (IVF). This was a prospective longitudinal study of 71 women aged 18–44 years planning IVF undergoing CO measurements obtained via inert gas rebreathing (IGR) using Innocor™ and whole-body bio-impedance (WBI) using Nicas™ to assess the reproducibility between the methods. Four visits occurred at which both techniques were used: initial assessment, embryo transfer, day of pregnancy test and 4 weeks post-transfer (regardless of whether conception occurred). Cross-sectional agreement of the methods was assessed using the calculation of bias, percentage error and limits of agreement (LOA) via the Bland–Altman analysis. Longitudinal agreement of the methods was assessed using a 4-quadrant plot with concordance rate, angular bias and radial limits of agreement (%). Results One hundred and thirteen measurements from 44 participants were suitable for cross-sectional (Bland–Altman) analysis. IGR (Innocor™) Mean CO was 4.61 L/min and 5.05 L/min with WBI (Nicas™). The bias was 0.44 L/min. The percentage error was 76% and intra-correlation coefficient was 0.135 (95% CI −0.43–0.306). Fifty-nine measurements from 28 participants were suitable for longitudinal (4Q-plot) analysis. The concordance rate was 64.4%, angular bias – 0.14, and radial limits of agreement + − 13.25°. Conclusion There was poor cross-sectional and longitudinal agreement between inert gas rebreathing and whole-body bio-impedance techniques. These techniques cannot be used interchangeably when measuring CO in women undergoing IVF, and these results may be more generalizable.

No abstract