PURPOSE: The objective was to compare laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I to IIA uterine cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (n = 1,696) or open laparotomy (n = 920), including hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic cytology, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The main study end points were 6-week morbidity and mortality, hospital length of stay, conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy, recurrence-free survival, site of recurrence, and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. RESULTS:Laparoscopy was initiated in 1,682 patients and completed without conversion in 1,248 patients (74.2%). Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was secondary to poor visibility in 246 patients (14.6%), metastatic cancer in 69 patients (4.1%), bleeding in 49 patients (2.9%), and other cause in 70 patients (4.2%). Laparoscopy had fewer moderate to severe postoperative adverse events than laparotomy (14% v 21%, respectively; P < .0001) but similar rates of intraoperative complications, despite having a significantly longer operative time (median, 204 v 130 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Hospitalization of more than 2 days was significantly lower in laparoscopy versus laparotomy patients (52% v 94%, respectively; P < .0001). Pelvic and para-aortic nodes were not removed in 8% of laparoscopy patients and 4% of laparotomy patients (P < .0001). No difference in overall detection of advanced stage (stage IIIA, IIIC, or IVB) was seen (17% of laparoscopy patients v 17% of laparotomy patients; P = .841). CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic surgical staging for uterine cancer is feasible and safe in terms of short-term outcomes and results in fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. Follow-up of these patients will determine whether surgical technique impacts pattern of recurrence or disease-free survival.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The objective was to compare laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I to IIA uterine cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (n = 1,696) or open laparotomy (n = 920), including hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic cytology, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. The main study end points were 6-week morbidity and mortality, hospital length of stay, conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy, recurrence-free survival, site of recurrence, and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. RESULTS: Laparoscopy was initiated in 1,682 patients and completed without conversion in 1,248 patients (74.2%). Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was secondary to poor visibility in 246 patients (14.6%), metastatic cancer in 69 patients (4.1%), bleeding in 49 patients (2.9%), and other cause in 70 patients (4.2%). Laparoscopy had fewer moderate to severe postoperative adverse events than laparotomy (14% v 21%, respectively; P < .0001) but similar rates of intraoperative complications, despite having a significantly longer operative time (median, 204 v 130 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Hospitalization of more than 2 days was significantly lower in laparoscopy versus laparotomy patients (52% v 94%, respectively; P < .0001). Pelvic and para-aortic nodes were not removed in 8% of laparoscopy patients and 4% of laparotomy patients (P < .0001). No difference in overall detection of advanced stage (stage IIIA, IIIC, or IVB) was seen (17% of laparoscopy patients v 17% of laparotomy patients; P = .841). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgical staging for uterine cancer is feasible and safe in terms of short-term outcomes and results in fewer complications and shorter hospital stay. Follow-up of these patients will determine whether surgical technique impacts pattern of recurrence or disease-free survival.
Authors: W T Creasman; F Odicino; P Maisonneuve; U Beller; J L Benedet; A P Heintz; H Y Ngan; S Pecorelli Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: J Michael Straughn; Warner K Huh; James W Orr; F Joseph Kelly; Phillip Y Roland; Michael A Gold; Matthew Powell; David G Mutch; Edward E Partridge; Larry C Kilgore; Mack N Barnes; J Maxwell Austin; Ronald D Alvarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: James Fanning; Michael L Hoffman; Stephen J Andrews; Allen W Harrah; John J Feldmeier Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Andrea Mariani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Bobbie S Gostout; Monica B Jones; Timothy O Wilson; Karl C Podratz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alice B Kornblith; Helen Q Huang; Joan L Walker; Nick M Spirtos; Jacob Rotmensch; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henry M Keys; James A Roberts; Virginia L Brunetto; Richard J Zaino; Nick M Spirtos; Jeffrey D Bloss; Andrew Pearlman; Mitchell A Maiman; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kimberly K Leslie; Kristina W Thiel; Michael J Goodheart; Koen De Geest; Yichen Jia; Shujie Yang Journal: Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Michael R Milam; James Java; Joan L Walker; Daniel S Metzinger; Lynn P Parker; Robert L Coleman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jvan Casarin; Francesco Multinu; Nadeem Abu-Rustum; David Cibula; William A Cliby; Fabio Ghezzi; Mario Leitao; Ikuo Konishi; Joo-Hyun Nam; Denis Querleu; Pamela T Soliman; Kathleen J Yost; Amy L Weaver; Andrea Mariani; Gretchen E Glaser Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.437
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