Martin Koskas1, Marta Jozwiak2, Marie Fournier3, Ignace Vergote4, Hans Trum2, Christianne Lok2, Frédéric Amant5. 1. Gynecologic Oncology, Bichat University Hospital, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France; Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: martin.koskas@wanadoo.fr. 2. Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Gynecologic Oncology, Bichat University Hospital, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France. 4. Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Center for Gynecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek-Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies showed that women with low-risk endometrial cancers staged by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) experience fewer postoperative complications compared to those staged by laparotomy with similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). However, high-risk patients were poorly represented. In this study, we compared DFS and OS in high-risk endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging via MIS versus laparotomy. METHODS: Using a multicentric database, we compared DFS and OS between 114 patients with high-risk histology who underwent surgical staging via MIS and 114 patients who underwent laparotomy. Patients were matched for age, tumour type, FIGO stage and management criteria. RESULTS: Among the 114 patients who underwent MIS, 93 underwent laparoscopy and 21 robotic surgery. Groups were comparable for stage, body mass index, histology and adjuvant therapies. However, patients in the MIS group underwent paraaortic lymphadenectomy less frequently (13% versus 29%; p = 0.01), had less lymph nodes removed (19.0 versus 28.6; p < 0.01) and had lower mean tumour size (30 versus 40 mm; p < 0.01). With a median follow-up time of 49 months, DFS and OS were not significantly different between the surgical cohorts. In multivariable analysis, both higher stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.2) and histology (HR = 4.9) were associated with DFS in contrast to surgical procedure (HR = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the benefit of MIS on immediate surgical outcome, our results show that fear for a poor long-term outcome should not be the reason to refrain from MIS in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.
BACKGROUND: Several studies showed that women with low-risk endometrial cancers staged by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) experience fewer postoperative complications compared to those staged by laparotomy with similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). However, high-risk patients were poorly represented. In this study, we compared DFS and OS in high-risk endometrial cancerpatients who underwent surgical staging via MIS versus laparotomy. METHODS: Using a multicentric database, we compared DFS and OS between 114 patients with high-risk histology who underwent surgical staging via MIS and 114 patients who underwent laparotomy. Patients were matched for age, tumour type, FIGO stage and management criteria. RESULTS: Among the 114 patients who underwent MIS, 93 underwent laparoscopy and 21 robotic surgery. Groups were comparable for stage, body mass index, histology and adjuvant therapies. However, patients in the MIS group underwent paraaortic lymphadenectomy less frequently (13% versus 29%; p = 0.01), had less lymph nodes removed (19.0 versus 28.6; p < 0.01) and had lower mean tumour size (30 versus 40 mm; p < 0.01). With a median follow-up time of 49 months, DFS and OS were not significantly different between the surgical cohorts. In multivariable analysis, both higher stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.2) and histology (HR = 4.9) were associated with DFS in contrast to surgical procedure (HR = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the benefit of MIS on immediate surgical outcome, our results show that fear for a poor long-term outcome should not be the reason to refrain from MIS in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.
Authors: Nicole Concin; Carien L Creutzberg; Ignace Vergote; David Cibula; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Simone Marnitz; Jonathan A Ledermann; Tjalling Bosse; Cyrus Chargari; Anna Fagotti; Christina Fotopoulou; Antonio González-Martín; Sigurd F Lax; Domenica Lorusso; Christian Marth; Philippe Morice; Remi A Nout; Dearbhaile E O'Donnell; Denis Querleu; Maria Rosaria Raspollini; Jalid Sehouli; Alina E Sturdza; Alexandra Taylor; Anneke M Westermann; Pauline Wimberger; Nicoletta Colombo; François Planchamp; Xavier Matias-Guiu Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Tim Wollinga; Nicole P M Ezendam; Florine A Eggink; Marieke Smink; Dennis van Hamont; Brenda Pijlman; Erik Boss; Elisabeth J Robbe; Huy Ngo; Dorry Boll; Constantijne H Mom; Maaike A van der Aa; Roy F L P Kruitwagen; Hans W Nijman; Johanna M A Pijnenborg Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2018-02-27
Authors: Giacomo Corrado; Francesca Ciccarone; Francesco Cosentino; Francesco Legge; Andrea Rosati; Martina Arcieri; Luigi Carlo Turco; Camilla Certelli; Alex Federico; Enrico Vizza; Francesco Fanfani; Giovanni Scambia; Gabriella Ferrandina Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Sang Il Kim; Dong Choon Park; Sung Jong Lee; Ji Geun Yoo; Min Jong Song; Chan Joo Kim; Hae Nam Lee; Joo Hee Yoon Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.738