Laura M Chambers1, Caitlin Carr2, Lindsey Freeman3, Amelia M Jernigan4, Chad M Michener5. 1. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: chambel2@ccf.org. 2. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 3. Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. 4. Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Louisiana State University Healthcare Network, New Orleans, LA. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is the standard of care in the majority of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted, multiport, and single-port laparoscopy technology. Although safe and efficacious, it is unclear how oncologic outcomes are impacted by surgical platform. OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in progression-free survival and overall survival in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer staging via either multiport, single-port, or robotic-assisted laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed in women with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery from 2009 to 2015. Data were collected for demographics, pathologic information, adjuvant treatment, and disease status. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate risk factors for outcomes, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards were used to evaluate differences in time to progression or death, and multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 1150 women with endometrial cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy (n=652), multiport laparoscopy (n=214), or single-port laparoscopy (n=284). The median age and body mass index of women was 62.0 years and 33.5 kg/m2, respectively. The majority of patients had endometrioid histology (88.1%), stage IA (74.7%) or IB disease (13.1%) and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (57.4%) or 2 (26.0%) histology. Lymphovascular space invasion was present in 24.7% (n=283). Adjuvant radiation was given in 34.2% of cases, with 21.9% receiving vaginal brachytherapy, 6.6% pelvic radiation, and 5.4% both. For the entire cohort, there were no differences in progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6%, 91.2%, 90.0%) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, there were no differences in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.4%, 91.8%, 91.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (95.6%, 93.4%, 90.7%), and single-port laparoscopy (95.0, 93.1, 91.8) (P=.99), respectively. Among women with stage IA and IB disease, no difference existed for progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6, 91.2, 90.0) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, among women with stage I disease, there was no difference in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (96.2%, 95.0%, 95.0%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.4%, 93.3%), and single-port laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.0%, 93.4%) (P=.89). Rather, progression-free survival and overall survival were predicted by age >65 years, stage, grade, and histology (P<.05). On multivariate analysis, modality of surgery did not impact overall survival or progression-free survival (robotic-assisted laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 1.28, P=.50; single-port laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 0.84, P=.68 vs multiport laparoscopy). Age >65 years (hazard ratio, 5.42, P<.001) and advanced stage disease (P=.003) were associated with decreased overall survival. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort, there was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival in women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted laparoscopy, single-port laparoscopy, or multiport laparoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hysterectomy is the standard of care in the majority of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted, multiport, and single-port laparoscopy technology. Although safe and efficacious, it is unclear how oncologic outcomes are impacted by surgical platform. OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in progression-free survival and overall survival in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer staging via either multiport, single-port, or robotic-assisted laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed in women with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery from 2009 to 2015. Data were collected for demographics, pathologic information, adjuvant treatment, and disease status. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate risk factors for outcomes, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards were used to evaluate differences in time to progression or death, and multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 1150 women with endometrial cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy (n=652), multiport laparoscopy (n=214), or single-port laparoscopy (n=284). The median age and body mass index of women was 62.0 years and 33.5 kg/m2, respectively. The majority of patients had endometrioid histology (88.1%), stage IA (74.7%) or IB disease (13.1%) and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (57.4%) or 2 (26.0%) histology. Lymphovascular space invasion was present in 24.7% (n=283). Adjuvant radiation was given in 34.2% of cases, with 21.9% receiving vaginal brachytherapy, 6.6% pelvic radiation, and 5.4% both. For the entire cohort, there were no differences in progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6%, 91.2%, 90.0%) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, there were no differences in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.4%, 91.8%, 91.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (95.6%, 93.4%, 90.7%), and single-port laparoscopy (95.0, 93.1, 91.8) (P=.99), respectively. Among women with stage IA and IB disease, no difference existed for progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6, 91.2, 90.0) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, among women with stage I disease, there was no difference in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (96.2%, 95.0%, 95.0%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.4%, 93.3%), and single-port laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.0%, 93.4%) (P=.89). Rather, progression-free survival and overall survival were predicted by age >65 years, stage, grade, and histology (P<.05). On multivariate analysis, modality of surgery did not impact overall survival or progression-free survival (robotic-assisted laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 1.28, P=.50; single-port laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 0.84, P=.68 vs multiport laparoscopy). Age >65 years (hazard ratio, 5.42, P<.001) and advanced stage disease (P=.003) were associated with decreased overall survival. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort, there was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival in women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted laparoscopy, single-port laparoscopy, or multiport laparoscopy.
Authors: Peter A Argenta; Jordan Mattson; Colleen L Rivard; Elizabeth Luther; Alexandra Schefter; Rachel I Vogel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 5.304