Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of lymph nodes: consensus opinion from the Vulvar International Tumor Analysis (<scp>VITA</scp>) group

et al. 2021

Cancers

Introduction: The study’s aim was to investigate the immunohistochemical (IHC) expression of biological markers as potential prognostic/therapeutic factors in vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC). Methodology: A series of 101 patients surgically treated at our center from 2016 to 2020 were retrospectively enrolled: 53 node-negative (Group A) and 48 node-positive (Group B). A total of 146 samples, 101 from primary tumor (T) and 45 from nodal metastases (N), were investigated. The IHC panel included: p16, p53, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, PD-L1, CD3, HER2/neu, ER, PR, EGFR, VEGF, and CD31. The reactions were evaluated on qualitative and semi-quantitative scales. Generalized Linear Model (GLM) and cluster analysis were performed in R statistical environment. A distance plot compared the IHC panel of T with the correspondent N. Results: In Group A: p16-positive expression (surrogate of HPV-dependent pathway) was significantly higher (20.8% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.04). In Group B: PD-L1 positivity and high EGFR expression were found, respectively, in 77.1% and 97.9% patients (T and/or N). Overall, p16-negative tumors showed a higher PD-L1 expression (60.9% vs. 50.0%). In both groups: tumoral immune infiltration (CD3 expression) was mainly moderate/intense (80% vs. 95%); VEGF showed strong/moderate-diffuse expression in 13.9% of T samples; CD31, related to tumoral microvessel density (MVD), showed no difference between groups; a mutated p53 and over-expressed PD-L1 showed significant association with nodal metastasis, with Odds Ratios (OR) of 4.26 (CI 95% = 1.14–15.87, p = 0.03) and 2.68 (CI 95% = 1.0–7.19, p < 0.05), respectively; since all mismatch repair proteins (MMR) showed a retained expression and ER, PR, and HER2/neu were negative, they were excluded from further analysis. The cluster analysis identified three and four sub-groups of molecular profiles, respectively, in Group A and B, with no difference in prognosis. The molecular signature of each N and corresponding T diverged significantly in 18/41 (43.9%) cases. Conclusions: Our results support a potential role of immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR drugs especially in patients with worse prognosis (metastatic, HPV-independent). A panel including EGFR, VEGF, PDL1, p16, and p53 might be performed routinely in primary tumor and repeated in case of lymph node metastases to identify changes in marker expression.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vulvar Immunohistochemical Panel (VIP) Project: Molecular Profiles of Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Garganese

Inzani

et al. 2021

Cancers

“…The recent publication of the consensus of the VITA (Vulvar International Tumor Analysis) group on terms, definitions and measurements described sonographic features of lymph nodes in vulvar cancer [62], overcoming the lack of standardized ultrasound nomenclature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Inguinal Lymph Nodes in Patients with Vulvar Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Verri¹,

Moro

et al. 2022

Cancers

Objective. To determine the efficacy of ultrasound in assessing the inguinal lymph nodes in patients with vulvar cancer. Methods. A systematic review of published research up to October 2020 that compares the results of ultrasound to determine groin node status with histology was conducted. All study types that reported primary data on the role of ultrasound in the evaluation of groin lymph nodes in vulvar cancer were included in the systematic review. Data retrieved from the included studies were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Results. After the screening and selection process, eight articles were deemed pertinent for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The random-effects model showed a pooled Se of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81–0.89), Sp of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81–0.91), PPV of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54–0.79) and NPV of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.91–0.94). There was a pooled LR+ and LR− of 6.44 (95% CI: 3.72–11.4) and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14–0.27), respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80–0.91). Conclusions. Although the studies had small sample sizes, this review represents the best summary of the data so far. Ultrasound has revealed high sensitivity and high negative predictive value in the assessment of nodal status in vulvar cancer.

“…Between November 2019 and May 2021, all consecutive patients referred to the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at our institution with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of primary or recurrent vulvar cancer, who were candidates for inguino-femoral dissection concomitant with ipsilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, were evaluated. The pre-operative work-up included positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and ultrasound to assess inguino-femoral and pelvic lymph node status, according to the experience developed in our center 16 21–26…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trans-inguinal pelvic lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer patients: TRIPLE pilot study

Garganese

Corte

et al. 2022

Int J Gynecol Cancer

Self Cite

ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of a retrograde extraperitoneal trans-inguinal novel approach to pelvic lymphadenectomy in vulvar cancer patients. The secondary objectives were to assess complications (early and late) and oncological outcomes.MethodsIn this pilot study, all patients referred to our institution from November 2019 to May 2021 were evaluated. The inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with primary/recurrent vulvar cancer and who were candidates for concomitant groin and pelvic lymph node dissection. A consecutive sampling was planned during the study period. After conventional inguino-femoral lymph nodal dissection, ipsilateral extraperitoneal trans-inguinal pelvic lymphadenectomy (TRIPLE) was performed through a groin incision. Clinical data, type of treatment, perioperative complications, and follow-up were evaluated.Results13 patients (8 primary, 5 recurrent vulvar cancer) underwent 16 TRIPLE procedures (10 unilateral, 3 bilateral). The median age was 69 years (range 58–93 years); 8 patients had comorbidities (61.5%). Up front locoregional radiotherapy was previously performed in two cases (15.4%). The pathology report showed metastatic lymph nodes in 20 (87%) groins and 11 (68.8%) pelvic sites; the mean number of removed and metastatic pelvic lymph nodes was 12.1 (range 5–33) and 2.9 (range 0–18), respectively. No intra-operative site-specific complications occurred. One (5.9%) post-operative site-specific complication was reported (pelvic abscess, grade 2), which was treated with antibiotics. One patient died due to concomitant pneumonia. No unilateral pelvic lymph node recurrence occurred during follow-up (median 13 months, range 2–43 months); 3 patients (23.1%) had distant site recurrence (median disease-free survival 9 months).ConclusionsTRIPLE seems to be a feasible and safe technique, providing adequate lymph node dissection. Despite being a high-risk and fragile population, morbidity was similar to previously reported data for conventional mini-invasive approaches. Prospective larger comparative series are necessary.