Literature DB >> 17346541

Laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy in clinical stage I endometrial cancer: safety, recurrence, and long-term outcome.

Ioannis Kalogiannidis1, Sandrijne Lambrechts, Frederic Amant, Patrick Neven, Toon Van Gorp, Ignace Vergote.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) in the treatment of clinical FIGO stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma and long-term survival outcome. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study without randomization of 169 consecutive patients. Laparoscopy or laparotomy was selected based on size and mobility of the uterus and Body Mass Index (BMI). Lymphadenectomy was only performed in cases at high-risk for nodal metastases.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (41%) treated successfully by LAVH (LAVH group) while 100 (59%) by total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) (laparotomy group). Four out of 73 patients initially approached by laparoscopy were converted to laparotomy (5.5%). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 40% of the LAVH and 57% of TAH group (P = 0.03). The median number of pelvic lymph nodes removed by LAVH and laparotomy was 15 (range 2-31) and 21 (range 2-65), respectively (P = 0.05). LAVH was associated with more surgical FIGO stage IA disease and a smaller tumor diameter. Operative time was significantly longer with laparoscopy compared with laparotomy, while blood loss and duration of hospitalization was significantly lower in the LAVH group. The recurrence rate in the LAVH group was 8.7%, compared with 16% in the laparotomy group (not significant, NS). The actuarial overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for the LAVH were 93% and 91% compared with 86% and 84% in the TAH, respectively (NS). In the multivariate analyses histological subtype was the only independent prognostic factor for DFS, while surgical technique was not.
CONCLUSION: LAVH with lymphadenectomy in selected population in high-risk patients with clinical stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma and with favorable body mass index of less than 35 kg/m2, appears to be safe procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17346541     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  20 in total

1.  Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgical staging procedure for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Tae Wook Kong; Kyung Mi Lee; Ji Yoon Cheong; Woo Young Kim; Suk-Joon Chang; Seung-Chul Yoo; Jong-Hyuck Yoon; Ki-Hong Chang; Hee-Sug Ryu
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.401

Review 2.  Role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Paul S Lin; Mark T Wakabayashi; Ernest S Han
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2009-04-08

3.  Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for management of endometrial carcinoma: a prospective randomized study with 11-year experience.

Authors:  Qi Lu; Haiyan Liu; Chongdong Liu; Shuzhen Wang; Shuhong Li; Shuli Guo; Junli Lu; Zhenyu Zhang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  Comparison of Surgical Outcomes according to Suturing Methods in Single Port Access Laparoscopic Myomectomy.

Authors:  Jae-Heok Jeong; Yu-Ri Kim; Eun-Jeong Kim; Soo-Hyeon Moon; Mi-Hwa Park; Jeong-Tae Kim; Jeong-Hye Kim; Kyu-Sup Lee
Journal:  J Menopausal Med       Date:  2015-04-27

5.  Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center.

Authors:  Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea; Sarah Adams; Suneel B Bhat; Thomas C Randall
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-02-07       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: A survey update.

Authors:  Mohamed Mabrouk; Michael Frumovitz; Marilyn Greer; Sheena Sharma; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pamela T Soliman; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; William M Burke; Ana I Tergas; June Y Hou; Yongmei Huang; Jim C Hu; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  No association between FTO or HHEX and endometrial cancer risk.

Authors:  Mia M Gaudet; Hannah P Yang; Jesus Gonzalez Bosquet; Catherine S Healey; Shahana Ahmed; Alison M Dunning; Doug F Easton; Amanda B Spurdle; Kaltin Ferguson; Tracy O'Mara; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Ignace Vergote; Frederic Amant; James V Lacey; Jola Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Louise A Brinton; Stephen Chanock; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Prognostic significance of peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer: comparison of laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy.

Authors:  Satoe Fujiwara; Ruri Nishie; Shoko Ueda; Syunsuke Miyamoto; Shinichi Terada; Yuhei Kogata; Tomohito Tanaka; Yoshimichi Tanaka; Masahide Ohmichi
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Controversies in the management of endometrial carcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Mohamed K Mehasseb; John A Latimer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2012-02-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.