OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laporoscopic approach to endometrial cancer is associated with survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 158 patients with endometrial cancer underwent staging surgery at a tertiary referral center, 30 of whom underwent laparoscopy, whereas the remainder received treatment with a conventional approach. Survival between groups was analyzed. RESULTS: The comparison of the groups revealed similar disease-free survival (p=0.791). Histology, cervical, adnexal and serosal involvement were found to be significantly correlated with recurrence in the laparoscopically staged group, whereas CA 125, histology, tumor grade, tumor diameter, cervical involvement, degree of myometrial invasion, adnexal and serosal involvement, and pelvic metastasis were significanly correlated with recurrence in the conventionally managed group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic approach to endometrial cancer, along with its widely accepted postoperative advantages, has similar disease-free survival but different variables affect recurrence rates.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether laporoscopic approach to endometrial cancer is associated with survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 158 patients with endometrial cancer underwent staging surgery at a tertiary referral center, 30 of whom underwent laparoscopy, whereas the remainder received treatment with a conventional approach. Survival between groups was analyzed. RESULTS: The comparison of the groups revealed similar disease-free survival (p=0.791). Histology, cervical, adnexal and serosal involvement were found to be significantly correlated with recurrence in the laparoscopically staged group, whereas CA 125, histology, tumor grade, tumor diameter, cervical involvement, degree of myometrial invasion, adnexal and serosal involvement, and pelvic metastasis were significanly correlated with recurrence in the conventionally managed group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic approach to endometrial cancer, along with its widely accepted postoperative advantages, has similar disease-free survival but different variables affect recurrence rates.
Authors: Amanda Nickles Fader; Leigh G Seamon; Pedro F Escobar; Heidi E Frasure; Laura A Havrilesky; Kristine M Zanotti; Angeles Alvarez Secord; John F Boggess; David E Cohn; Jeffrey M Fowler; Gregory Skafianos; Emma Rossi; Paola A Gehrig Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emily F Dunn; Heather Geye; Chris S Platta; Vinai Gondi; Stephen Rose; Kristin A Bradley; Bethany M Anderson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Maria Lee; Young Tae Kim; Sang Wun Kim; Sunghoon Kim; Jae Hoon Kim; Eun Ji Nam Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.437
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: Mariam M AlHilli; Karl C Podratz; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Sanjeev Kumar; Gary L Keeney; William A Cliby; Andrea Mariani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 5.482
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