Vanessa L Nieto1, Yongmei Huang2, June Y Hou3, Ana I Tergas4, Caryn M St Clair3, Cande V Ananth5, Alfred I Neugut4, Dawn L Hershman4, Jason D Wright6. 1. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 2. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY. 3. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 4. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 5. Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 6. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: jw2459@columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is now used routinely for women with uterine cancer. Most studies of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer have focused on low-risk endometrioid tumors, with few reports of the safety of the procedure for women with higher risk histologic subtypes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of and survival associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy for women with uterine cancer and high-risk histologic subtypes. STUDY DESIGN: We used the National Cancer Database to identify women with stages I-III uterine cancer who underwent hysterectomy from 2010-2014. Women with serous carcinomas, clear cell carcinomas, and sarcomas were examined. Women who had laparoscopic or robotic-assisted hysterectomy were compared with those who underwent open abdominal hysterectomy. After a propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis, the effect of minimally invasive hysterectomy on overall, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates was examined for each histologic subtype of uterine cancer. RESULTS: Of 94,507 patients who were identified, 64,417 patients (68.2%) underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. Among women with endometrioid tumors (n=81,115), 70.8% underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. The rates of minimally invasive surgery in those women with nonendometrioid tumors (n=13,392) was 57.6% for serous carcinomas, 57.0% for clear cell tumors, 47.3% for sarcomas, 32.2% for leiomyosarcomas, 47.9% for stromal sarcomas, and 48.5% for carcinosarcomas. Performance of minimally invasive surgery increased across all histologic subtypes between 2010 and 2014. For nonendometrioid subtypes, robotic-assisted procedures accounted for 47.9-75.7% of minimally invasive hysterectomies by 2014. In a multivariable model, women with nonendometrioid tumors were less likely to undergo minimally invasive surgery than those with endometrioid tumors (P<.05). There was no association between route of surgery and 30-day, 90-day, or overall mortality rates for any of the nonendometrioid histologic subtypes. CONCLUSION: The use of minimally invasive surgery is increasing rapidly for women with stage I-III nonendometrioid uterine tumors. Performance of minimally invasive surgery does not appear to impact survival adversely.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is now used routinely for women with uterine cancer. Most studies of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer have focused on low-risk endometrioid tumors, with few reports of the safety of the procedure for women with higher risk histologic subtypes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of and survival associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy for women with uterine cancer and high-risk histologic subtypes. STUDY DESIGN: We used the National Cancer Database to identify women with stages I-III uterine cancer who underwent hysterectomy from 2010-2014. Women with serous carcinomas, clear cell carcinomas, and sarcomas were examined. Women who had laparoscopic or robotic-assisted hysterectomy were compared with those who underwent open abdominal hysterectomy. After a propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis, the effect of minimally invasive hysterectomy on overall, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates was examined for each histologic subtype of uterine cancer. RESULTS: Of 94,507 patients who were identified, 64,417 patients (68.2%) underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. Among women with endometrioid tumors (n=81,115), 70.8% underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. The rates of minimally invasive surgery in those women with nonendometrioid tumors (n=13,392) was 57.6% for serous carcinomas, 57.0% for clear cell tumors, 47.3% for sarcomas, 32.2% for leiomyosarcomas, 47.9% for stromal sarcomas, and 48.5% for carcinosarcomas. Performance of minimally invasive surgery increased across all histologic subtypes between 2010 and 2014. For nonendometrioid subtypes, robotic-assisted procedures accounted for 47.9-75.7% of minimally invasive hysterectomies by 2014. In a multivariable model, women with nonendometrioid tumors were less likely to undergo minimally invasive surgery than those with endometrioid tumors (P<.05). There was no association between route of surgery and 30-day, 90-day, or overall mortality rates for any of the nonendometrioid histologic subtypes. CONCLUSION: The use of minimally invasive surgery is increasing rapidly for women with stage I-III nonendometrioid uterine tumors. Performance of minimally invasive surgery does not appear to impact survival adversely.
Authors: Michelle E Ross; Amanda R Kreider; Yuan-Shung Huang; Meredith Matone; David M Rubin; A Russell Localio Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jason D Wright; Alfred I Neugut; Elizabeth T Wilde; Donna L Buono; Wei-Yann Tsai; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Jason D Wright; William M Burke; Elizabeth T Wilde; Sharyn N Lewin; Abigail S Charles; Jin Hee Kim; Noah Goldman; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas Obermair; Monika Janda; Jannah Baker; Srinivas Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan; 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; David H Wrede; Selvan Pather; Bryony Simcock; Rhonda Farrell; Gregory Robertson; Graeme Walker; Anthony McCartney; Val Gebski Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 9.162
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