OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess whether hysterectomy with wider resection could improve survival by preventing local recurrence. METHODS: Medical charts of the patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancers treated at our hospital between 1990 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse effects according to the type of hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were identified: 46 patients treated with total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH group) and 201 patients with modified radical hysterectomy (mRH group). No significant differences were observed in OS (p = 0.52) and PFS (p = 0.67) between the two groups. Also, there was no significant difference in the distribution of recurrent sites between the two groups. The patients treated with mRH had a longer operation time and more frequently developed severe adverse events, such as blood loss and lymphedema. CONCLUSION: In our cohorts, there were no significant differences in both PFS and OS according to surgical procedures, and the mRH group more frequently developed severe adverse events. Overall, clinical benefit was not obtained by mRH in patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial carcinomas.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess whether hysterectomy with wider resection could improve survival by preventing local recurrence. METHODS: Medical charts of the patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancers treated at our hospital between 1990 and 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse effects according to the type of hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were identified: 46 patients treated with total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH group) and 201 patients with modified radical hysterectomy (mRH group). No significant differences were observed in OS (p = 0.52) and PFS (p = 0.67) between the two groups. Also, there was no significant difference in the distribution of recurrent sites between the two groups. The patients treated with mRH had a longer operation time and more frequently developed severe adverse events, such as blood loss and lymphedema. CONCLUSION: In our cohorts, there were no significant differences in both PFS and OS according to surgical procedures, and the mRH group more frequently developed severe adverse events. Overall, clinical benefit was not obtained by mRH in patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial carcinomas.
Authors: Salim Abraham Barquet-Muñoz; David Cantú-de-León; Antonio Bandala-Jacques; Aarón González-Enciso; David Isla-Ortiz; Diddier Prada; Luis A Herrera; R A Salcedo-Hernández Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 2.754