Search

Objective: To compare disease-free survival between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.Methods: We conducted a multicentric, propensity-matched study of patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and staging between January 1999 and June 2016 at two centers. High-risk endometrial cancer included grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, undifferentiated carcinoma or carcinosarcoma with any myometrial invasion. Patients were categorized a priori into two groups based on surgical approach, propensity scores were calculated based on potential confounders and groups were matched 1:1 using nearest neighbor technique. Cox hazard regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated the association of surgical technique with survival.Results: Of 626 eligible patients, 263 (42%) underwent minimally invasive surgery and 363 (58%) underwent open surgery. In the matched cohort, there were no differences in disease-free survival rates at 5 years between open (53.4% [95% CI 45.6-60.5%]) and minimally invasive surgery (54.6% [95% CI 46.6-61.8]; P=.82). Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-1.16; P=.30), overall survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73-1.48, P=.81), or recurrence rate (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.44; P=.99) compared with open surgery. Use of uterine manipulator was not associated with worse disease-free survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65-1.58, P=.96), overall survival (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.71-1.96, P=.53), or recurrence rate (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87; P=.66).Conclusion: There was no difference in oncologic outcomes comparing minimally invasive and open surgery among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radical trachelectomy is the 'cornerstone' of fertilitysparing surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer wishing to preserve fertility. Growing evidence has demonstrated the oncologic safety and subsequent favorable pregnancy outcomes in well-selected cases. In the absence of prospective trials, the decision on the appropriate surgical approach (vaginal, open, or minimally invasive surgery) should be based on local resources and surgeons' preferences. Radical trachelectomy has the potential to preserve fertility in a large proportion of women with early-stage cervical cancer. However, prematurity and premature rupture of membranes are common obstetric complications after radical trachelectomy for cervical cancer. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to optimize the balance between oncologic and obstetric outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated overview of the technical, oncologic, and obstetric aspects of radical trachelectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minimally invasive surgery and open surgery had similar disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. DATA SOURCES: A cohort study of all patients who underwent surgery for high-risk endometrial cancer between 1999 and 2016 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) and a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus of all published studies until December 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The systematic review identified 2,332 patients (14 studies, all retrospective except a subanalysis of a randomized comparison) and the cohort study identified 542 additional patients. Articles were included if reporting original data on overall survival and disease-free survival among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer , defined as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, mixed histology, or uterine carcinosarcoma. Studies that did not report at least one of the main outcomes, those in which one surgical technique (robotic or laparoscopic surgery) was missing in the comparison analysis with open surgery, and case reports were excluded. Additional data were extracted from a retrospective cohort of patients from Mayo. A random-effect model was used for meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO. Literature search and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, as well as quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Meta-analysis showed that disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery were not statistically different from those of patients who underwent open abdominal surgery (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.05, I2 20%, P =.23; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77–1.11, I2 31%, P =.12, respectively). Subgroup analysis by stage (early vs advanced) did not identify a difference between surgical approaches. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery and open surgery had similar disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021275535. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]