AIM: To determine whether clinical outcomes show a benefit from extended hysterectomy in patients with early endometrial cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 101 patients who had endometrial cancer with clinical stage I disease. All the patients were surgically staged, and two types of hysterectomy, simple hysterectomy (SH) or extended hysterectomy (EH), were performed by surgeon's preference. The postoperative pathology findings, recurrence rate and disease-free survivals (DFS) between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients and thirty-five patients underwent SH and EH, respectively. At subsequent surgical staging, seven patients (10.6%) in the SH and four (11.4%) in EH group were upgraded to stage II or III disease. The surgical and pathological features were not different between the groups. Though the recurrence rate was lower in the EH group (9.09% for SH vs 2.86% for EH), it showed no statistical significance (P = 0.241). The 5-year DFS (88.2% for SH vs 96.0% for EH) showed no statistically significant difference between the groups either (P = 0.242). CONCLUSION: Compared to SH, EH did not have any prognostic benefit in clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Until the therapeutic role of the EH is determined by further studies using a larger sample size, SH remains the treatment of choice in patients with early endometrial cancer, and surgeons should not perform extended operation without definite evidence of the disease.
AIM: To determine whether clinical outcomes show a benefit from extended hysterectomy in patients with early endometrial cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 101 patients who had endometrial cancer with clinical stage I disease. All the patients were surgically staged, and two types of hysterectomy, simple hysterectomy (SH) or extended hysterectomy (EH), were performed by surgeon's preference. The postoperative pathology findings, recurrence rate and disease-free survivals (DFS) between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients and thirty-five patients underwent SH and EH, respectively. At subsequent surgical staging, seven patients (10.6%) in the SH and four (11.4%) in EH group were upgraded to stage II or III disease. The surgical and pathological features were not different between the groups. Though the recurrence rate was lower in the EH group (9.09% for SH vs 2.86% for EH), it showed no statistical significance (P = 0.241). The 5-year DFS (88.2% for SH vs 96.0% for EH) showed no statistically significant difference between the groups either (P = 0.242). CONCLUSION: Compared to SH, EH did not have any prognostic benefit in clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Until the therapeutic role of the EH is determined by further studies using a larger sample size, SH remains the treatment of choice in patients with early endometrial cancer, and surgeons should not perform extended operation without definite evidence of the disease.