Tarik K Yuce1,2, Ryan J Ellis1,2, Jeanette Chung1,2, Ryan P Merkow1,2, Anthony D Yang1,2, Nathaniel J Soper2, Edward J Tanner3, Edward M Schaeffer4, Karl Y Bilimoria1,2, Gregory B Auffenberg1,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Northwestern Institute for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Oncology (NICER-Onc), Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies demonstrating decreased survival following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer have generated concern regarding oncologic efficacy of MIS. Our objective was to evaluate the association between surgical approach and 5-year survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies. METHODS: Patients with stage I or II adenocarcinoma of the prostate, colon, rectum, and stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer from 2010-2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. The association between surgical approach and 5-year survival was assessed using propensity-score-matched cohorts. Distributions were compared using logistic regression. Hazard ratio for death was estimated using Cox proportional-hazard models. RESULTS: The rate of deaths at 5 years was 3.4% following radical prostatectomy, 22.9% following colectomy, 18.6% following proctectomy, and 6.8% following radical hysterectomy. Open surgery was associated with worse survival following radical prostatectomy (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33; P = .005), colectomy (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51; P < .001), and proctectomy (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; P = .002); however, open surgery was associated with improved survival following radical hysterectomy (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that MIS is an acceptable approach in selected patients with prostate, colon, and rectal cancers, while concerns regarding MIS resection of cervical cancer appear warranted.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies demonstrating decreased survival following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer have generated concern regarding oncologic efficacy of MIS. Our objective was to evaluate the association between surgical approach and 5-year survival following resection of abdominopelvic malignancies. METHODS:Patients with stage I or II adenocarcinoma of the prostate, colon, rectum, and stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer from 2010-2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. The association between surgical approach and 5-year survival was assessed using propensity-score-matched cohorts. Distributions were compared using logistic regression. Hazard ratio for death was estimated using Cox proportional-hazard models. RESULTS: The rate of deaths at 5 years was 3.4% following radical prostatectomy, 22.9% following colectomy, 18.6% following proctectomy, and 6.8% following radical hysterectomy. Open surgery was associated with worse survival following radical prostatectomy (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33; P = .005), colectomy (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39-1.51; P < .001), and proctectomy (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; P = .002); however, open surgery was associated with improved survival following radical hysterectomy (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that MIS is an acceptable approach in selected patients with prostate, colon, and rectal cancers, while concerns regarding MIS resection of cervical cancer appear warranted.
Authors: Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William D Ulmer; Sandip M Prasad; Keith J Kowalczyk; Xiangmei Gu; Christopher Dodgion; Stuart Lipsitz; Ganesh S Palapattu; Toni K Choueiri; Jim C Hu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Antonio M Lacy; Juan C García-Valdecasas; Salvadora Delgado; Antoni Castells; Pilar Taurá; Josep M Piqué; Josep Visa Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245