Literature DB >> 34348183

Determinants of Surgical Approach and Survival Among Women with Endometrial Carcinoma.

Kristin Bixel1, David A Barrington2, Monica H Vetter3, Adrian A Suarez4, Ashley S Felix5.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To investigate determinants of surgical approach among women with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and associations between surgical approach and overall survival (OS).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort.
SETTING: The National Cancer Database, 2010 to 2015. PATIENTS: A total of 140 470 patients with histologically confirmed EC who underwent hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were grouped according to surgical approach.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 140 470 patients with EC were included. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) was the most common surgical approach (48.8%), followed by laparotomy (33.6%) and traditional laparoscopy (17.6%). Use of RAL increased over the study period, and the percentages of cases managed by laparotomy decreased. Older women, those with insurance, residing in ZIP codes with lower proportions of individuals who did not graduate from high school, and those treated at noncommunity cancer programs were less likely to undergo laparotomy than RAL, and non-white women, those diagnosed with high-grade histology, and those with advanced-stage EC were more likely to undergo laparotomy than RAL. Compared with RAL, all other surgical approaches were associated with worse OS (laparotomy: hazard ratio 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.25; traditional laparoscopy: hazard ratio 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09). Significant effect modification of the surgical approach and OS relationship according to age, race, histology, stage, and adjuvant treatment was observed.
CONCLUSION: RAL increased in frequency over the study period and was associated with improved OS, supporting the continued use of RAL for EC management.
Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Effect modification; Endometrial carcinoma; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34348183      PMCID: PMC8803987          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  28 in total

1.  Cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Minimally Invasive Staging Surgery in Women with Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

Authors:  Amy J Bregar; Alexander Melamed; Elisabeth Diver; Joel T Clemmer; Shitanshu Uppal; John O Schorge; Laurel W Rice; Marcela G Del Carmen; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery.

Authors:  Susie Lau; Zvi Vaknin; Agnihotram V Ramana-Kumar; Darron Halliday; Eduardo L Franco; Walter H Gotlieb
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study.

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

5.  Factors Impacting Use of Robotic Surgery for Treatment of Endometrial Cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Erin A Blake; Jeanelle Sheeder; Kian Behbakht; Saketh R Guntupalli; Michael S Guy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  D A Park; J E Yun; S W Kim; S H Lee
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

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

8.  Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Vincent Lavoue; Xing Zeng; Susie Lau; Joshua Z Press; Jeremie Abitbol; Raphael Gotlieb; Jeffrey How; Yifan Wang; Walter H Gotlieb
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas Ind; Alex Laios; Matthew Hacking; Marielle Nobbenhuis
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.547

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Authors:  Vincenzo Dario Mandato; Andrea Palicelli; Federica Torricelli; Valentina Mastrofilippo; Chiara Leone; Vittoria Dicarlo; Alessandro Tafuni; Giacomo Santandrea; Gianluca Annunziata; Matteo Generali; Debora Pirillo; Gino Ciarlini; Lorenzo Aguzzoli
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-18

2.  Innovation in Cancer Surgery: Maintaining Focus on Survival as the Critical Outcome.

Authors:  Roni Nitecki; David Boruta
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 4.314

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.