PURPOSE: The study's objective was to compare the quality of life (QoL) of patients with endometrial cancer undergoingsurgical staging via laparoscopy versus laparotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 802 eligible patients (laparoscopy, n = 535; laparotomy, n = 267) participated in the QoL study in a Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) randomized trial oflaparoscopy versus laparotomy (GOG 2222). Patients completed QoL assessments at baseline; at 1, 3, and 6 weeks; and at 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, laparoscopy patients reported significantly higher Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scores (P = .001), better physical functioning (P = .006), better body image (BI; P < .001), less pain (P < .001) and its interference with QoL (P < .001), and an earlier resumption of normal activities (P = .003) and return to work (P = .04) over the 6-week postsurgery period, as compared with laparotomy patients. However, the differences in BI and return to work between groups were modest, and the adjusted FACT-G scores did not meet the minimally important difference (MID) between the two surgical arms over 6 weeks. By 6 months, except for better BI in laparoscopy patients (P < .001), the difference in QoL between the two surgical techniques was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although the FACT-G did not show a MID between the two surgical groups, and only modest differences in return to work and BI were found between the two groups, statistically significantly better QoL across many parameters in the laparoscopy arm at 6 weeks provides modest support for the QoL advantage of using laparoscopy to stage patients with early endometrial cancer.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The study's objective was to compare the quality of life (QoL) of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing surgical staging via laparoscopy versus laparotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 802 eligible patients (laparoscopy, n = 535; laparotomy, n = 267) participated in the QoL study in a Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) randomized trial of laparoscopy versus laparotomy (GOG 2222). Patients completed QoL assessments at baseline; at 1, 3, and 6 weeks; and at 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, laparoscopy patients reported significantly higher Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scores (P = .001), better physical functioning (P = .006), better body image (BI; P < .001), less pain (P < .001) and its interference with QoL (P < .001), and an earlier resumption of normal activities (P = .003) and return to work (P = .04) over the 6-week postsurgery period, as compared with laparotomy patients. However, the differences in BI and return to work between groups were modest, and the adjusted FACT-G scores did not meet the minimally important difference (MID) between the two surgical arms over 6 weeks. By 6 months, except for better BI in laparoscopy patients (P < .001), the difference in QoL between the two surgical techniques was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although the FACT-G did not show a MID between the two surgical groups, and only modest differences in return to work and BI were found between the two groups, statistically significantly better QoL across many parameters in the laparoscopy arm at 6 weeks provides modest support for the QoL advantage of using laparoscopy to stage patients with early endometrial cancer.
Authors: Marco Braga; Matteo Frasson; Andrea Vignali; Walter Zuliani; Vittorio Civelli; Valerio Di Carlo Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G M Boike; C E Miller; N M Spirtos; L J Mercer; J M Fowler; R Summitt; J W Orr Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Larissa A Meyer; Alpa M Nick; Qiuling Shi; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta Williams; Tremaine Brock; Maria D Iniesta; Kelly Rangel; Karen H Lu; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kemi M Doll; Alison K Kalinowski; Anna C Snavely; Debra E Irwin; Jeannette T Bensen; Victoria L Bae-Jump; Kenneth H Kim; Linda Van Le; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson; Paola A Gehrig Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thejus T Jayakrishnan; Hasan Nadeem; Ryan T Groeschl; Ben George; James P Thomas; Paul S Ritch; Kathleen K Christians; Susan Tsai; Douglas B Evans; Sam G Pappas; T Clark Gamblin; Kiran K Turaga Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Jeanne Carter; Helen Huang; Dana M Chase; Joan L Walker; David Cella; Lari Wenzel Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Nancy L Keating; Joel T Clemmer; Amy J Bregar; Jason D Wright; David M Boruta; John O Schorge; Marcela G Del Carmen; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 8.661