Erin A Bishop1, James J Java2, Kathleen N Moore3, Nick M Spirtos4, Michael L Pearl5, Oliver Zivanovic6, David M Kushner7, Floor Backes8, Chad A Hamilton9, Melissa A Geller10, Jean Hurteau11, Cara Mathews12, Robert M Wenham13, Pedro T Ramirez14, Susan Zweizig15, Joan L Walker3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK. Electronic address: erbishop@mcw.edu. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK. 4. Women's Cancer Center, Las Vegas, NV. 5. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY. 6. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY. 7. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 8. Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Hilliard, OH. 9. Gynecologic Oncology Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. 10. University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL. 12. Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI. 13. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 14. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 15. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tolerance of and complications caused by minimally invasive hysterectomy and staging in the older endometrial cancer population is largely unknown despite the fact that this is the most rapidly growing age group in the United States. The objective of this retrospective review was to compare operative morbidity by age in patients on the Gynecologic Oncology Group Laparoscopic Surgery or Standard Surgery in Treating Patients With Endometrial Cancer or Cancer of the Uterus (LAP2) trial. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of patients from Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2, a trial that included clinically early-stage uterine cancer patients randomized tolaparotomy vs laparoscopy for surgical staging. Differences in the rates and types of intraoperative and perioperative complications were compared by age. Specifically complications between patients <60 vs ≥60 years old were compared caused by toxicity analysis showing a sharp increase in toxicity starting at age 60 years in the laparotomy group. RESULTS:LAP2 included 1477 patients ≥60 years old. As expected, with increasing age there was worsening performance status and disease characteristics including higher rates of serous histology, high-stage disease, and lymphovascular space invasion. There was no significant difference in lymph node dissection rate by age for the entire population or within the laparotomy or laparoscopy groups. Toxicity analysis showed a sharp increase in toxicity seen in patients ≥60 years old in the laparotomy group. Further analysis showed that when comparing laparotomy with laparoscopy in patients <60 years old vs ≥60 years old and controlling for race, body mass index, stage, grade, and performance status, patients <60 years old undergoing laparotomy had more hospital stays >2 days (odds ratio, 17.48; 95% confidence interval, 11.71-27.00, P < .001) compared with patients <60 years old undergoing laparoscopy. However, when comparing laparotomy with laparoscopy in patients ≥60 years old, in addition to hospital stay >2 days (odds ratio, 12.77; 95% confidence interval, 8.74-19.32, P < .001), there were higher rates of the following postoperative complications: antibiotic administration (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14, P < .001), ileus (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.31, P <0.001), pneumonias (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.66, P = .048), deep vein thromboses (odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-8.03, P = .035), and arrhythmias (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-6.65, P = .001) in the laparotomy group. CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic staging for uterine cancer is associated with decreased morbidity in the immediate postoperative period in patients ≥60 years old. These results allow for more accurate preoperative counseling. A minimally invasive approach to uterine cancer staging may decrease morbidity that could affect long-term survival.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Tolerance of and complications caused by minimally invasive hysterectomy and staging in the older endometrial cancer population is largely unknown despite the fact that this is the most rapidly growing age group in the United States. The objective of this retrospective review was to compare operative morbidity by age in patients on the Gynecologic Oncology Group Laparoscopic Surgery or Standard Surgery in Treating Patients With Endometrial Cancer or Cancer of the Uterus (LAP2) trial. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of patients from Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2, a trial that included clinically early-stage uterine cancerpatients randomized to laparotomy vs laparoscopy for surgical staging. Differences in the rates and types of intraoperative and perioperative complications were compared by age. Specifically complications between patients <60 vs ≥60 years old were compared caused by toxicity analysis showing a sharp increase in toxicity starting at age 60 years in the laparotomy group. RESULTS:LAP2 included 1477 patients ≥60 years old. As expected, with increasing age there was worsening performance status and disease characteristics including higher rates of serous histology, high-stage disease, and lymphovascular space invasion. There was no significant difference in lymph node dissection rate by age for the entire population or within the laparotomy or laparoscopy groups. Toxicity analysis showed a sharp increase in toxicity seen in patients ≥60 years old in the laparotomy group. Further analysis showed that when comparing laparotomy with laparoscopy in patients <60 years old vs ≥60 years old and controlling for race, body mass index, stage, grade, and performance status, patients <60 years old undergoing laparotomy had more hospital stays >2 days (odds ratio, 17.48; 95% confidence interval, 11.71-27.00, P < .001) compared with patients <60 years old undergoing laparoscopy. However, when comparing laparotomy with laparoscopy in patients ≥60 years old, in addition to hospital stay >2 days (odds ratio, 12.77; 95% confidence interval, 8.74-19.32, P < .001), there were higher rates of the following postoperative complications: antibiotic administration (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14, P < .001), ileus (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.31, P <0.001), pneumonias (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.66, P = .048), deep vein thromboses (odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-8.03, P = .035), and arrhythmias (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-6.65, P = .001) in the laparotomy group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic staging for uterine cancer is associated with decreased morbidity in the immediate postoperative period in patients ≥60 years old. These results allow for more accurate preoperative counseling. A minimally invasive approach to uterine cancer staging may decrease morbidity that could affect long-term survival.
Authors: Emma C Rossi; Lynn D Kowalski; Jennifer Scalici; Leigh Cantrell; Kevin Schuler; Rabbie K Hanna; Michael Method; Melissa Ade; Anastasia Ivanova; John F Boggess Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; Ralph G DePalma; Cecilia Mosca; Nancy A Healey; Dharam J Kumbhani Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Wah Siew Tan; Min Hoe Chew; Irene Ai Ling Lim; Kheng Hong Ng; Choong Leong Tang; Kong Weng Eu Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Monika Janda; Val Gebski; Lucy C Davies; Peta Forder; Alison Brand; Russell Hogg; Thomas W Jobling; Russell Land; Tom Manolitsas; Marcelo Nascimento; Deborah Neesham; James L Nicklin; Martin K Oehler; Geoff Otton; Lewis Perrin; Stuart Salfinger; Ian Hammond; Yee Leung; Peter Sykes; Hextan Ngan; Andrea Garrett; Michael Laney; Tong Yow Ng; Karfai Tam; Karen Chan; C David Wrede; Selvan Pather; Bryony Simcock; Rhonda Farrell; Gregory Robertson; Graeme Walker; Nigel R Armfield; Nick Graves; Anthony J McCartney; Andreas Obermair Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David W Doo; Saketh R Guntupalli; Bradley R Corr; Jeanelle Sheeder; Susan A Davidson; Kian Behbakht; Michael J Jarrett; Michael S Guy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Floor J Backes; Adam C ElNaggar; Michael Ryan Farrell; Lorna A Brudie; Sarfraz Ahmad; Ritu Salani; David E Cohn; Robert W Holloway; Jeffrey M Fowler; David M O'Malley Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2016-11 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: Justine M Briët; Marian Je Mourits; Barbara L van Leeuwen; Edwin R van den Heuvel; Monique Ja Kenkhuis; Henriette Jg Arts; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 4.458