Back to Search
Start Over
Comparison of minimally invasive versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial carcinosarcoma.
- Source :
-
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society [Int J Gynecol Cancer] 2020 Aug; Vol. 30 (8), pp. 1162-1168. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jul 20. - Publication Year :
- 2020
-
Abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive and open surgery in the treatment of endometrial carcinosarcoma.<br />Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients with newly diagnosed endometrial carcinosarcoma who underwent primary surgery via any approach at our institution from January 2009 to January 2018. Patients with known bulky disease identified on preoperative imaging were excluded. The χ <superscript>2</superscript> and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival, and compared using the log rank test.<br />Results: We identified 147 eligible patients, of whom 37 (25%) underwent an open approach and 110 (75%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Within the minimally invasive group, 92 (84%) of 110 patients underwent a robotic procedure and 14 (13%) underwent a laparoscopic procedure. Four minimally invasive cases (4%) were converted to open procedures. Median age, body mass index, operative time, stage, complication grade, and use of adjuvant treatment were clinically and statistically similar between groups. Median length of hospital stay in the open group was 4 days (range 3-21) compared with 1 day (range 0-6) in the minimally invasive group (p<0.001). The rates of any 30-day complication were 46% in the open and 8% in the minimally invasive group (p<0.001). The rates of grade 3 or higher complications were 5.4% and 1.8%, respectively (p=0.53). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 30 months (range 0.4-121). Two-year progression-free survival rates were 52.8% (SE±8.4) in the open group and 58.5% (SE±5.1) in the minimally invasive group (p=0.7). Two-year disease-specific survival rates were 66.1% (SE±8.0) and 81.4% (SE±4.1), respectively (p=0.8).<br />Conclusions: In patients with clinical stage I endometrial carcinosarcoma, minimally invasive compared with open surgery was not associated with poor oncologic outcomes, but with a shorter length of hospital stay and a lower rate of overall complications.<br />Competing Interests: Competing interests: ML is an ad hoc speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Outside the submitted work, ML reports personal fees from JNJ/Ethicon. EJ reports personal fees from Covidien/Medtronic. DSC reports personal fees from Bovie Medical Co, Verthermia Inc (now Apyx Medical Corp), C Surgeries, and Biom ‘Up. NRA-R reports grants from Stryker/Novadaq, Olympus, and GRAIL.<br /> (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
- Subjects :
- Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carcinosarcoma pathology
Conversion to Open Surgery
Endometrial Neoplasms pathology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Laparoscopy adverse effects
Length of Stay
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Operative Time
Patient Readmission
Postoperative Complications etiology
Progression-Free Survival
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures adverse effects
Survival Rate
Carcinosarcoma surgery
Endometrial Neoplasms surgery
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures adverse effects
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1525-1438
- Volume :
- 30
- Issue :
- 8
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 32690592
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001573