Advertisement

Minimally invasive surgery does not impair overall survival in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients

  • Andrea PapadiaEmail author
  • Alicia Garbade
  • Maria Luisa Gasparri
  • Junjie Wang
  • Anda Petronela Radan
  • Michael D. Mueller
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate weather survival is impaired in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients treated with minimally invasive surgery as compared to laparotomy.

Methods

We analyzed surgical data and oncologic outcome of histologically proven stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients who were treated at our institution via laparotomy or via laparoscopic surgery. All the patients underwent a systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy and a complete tumor resection. Perioperative morbidity and overall survival of the patients subjected to the two surgical approaches were compared.

Results

Sixty-six patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer were identified. Of these, 15 patients were operated via laparotomy and 51 via laparoscopy. The two groups were similar with regards to median age at diagnosis, BMI, histotype, number of affected lymph nodes, and median maximal diameter of the affected lymph nodes. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had fewer perioperative complications, a smaller estimated blood loss, and were subjected less frequently to transfusions. Overall survival at 60 months of follow-up did not differ between the two groups. At uni- and multivariate analysis, surgical approach did not affect survival. Only age was a variable associated with overall survival.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive surgery has better perioperative outcomes and does not impair survival in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients. Age at diagnosis is the only factor independently affecting survival.

Keywords

Endometrial cancer Laparotomy Laparoscopy Lymph node metastases Overall survival 

Notes

Author contribution

AP: concept, manuscript writing and editing, and supervision. MDM: concept, manuscript editing, and supervision. MLG: statistical analysis, manuscript writing and editing, and supervision. JW: manuscript writing and editing, supervision. APR: Data acquisition, manuscript writing and editing, and supervision. AG: data acquisition.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Andrea Papadia has no conflict of interest. Alicia Garbade has no conflict of interest. Maria Luisa Gasparri has no conflict of interest. Junjie Wang has no conflict of interest. Anda Petronela Radan has no conflict of interest. Michael D Mueller has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Zullo F, Falbo A, Palomba S (2012) Safety of laparoscopy vs laparotomy in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27:5331–5336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papadia A, Remorgida V, Salom EM et al (2004) Laparoscopic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic oncology. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2002) Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol 30:695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 379:1895–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petru E, Lück HJ, Stuart G et al (2019) Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) proposals for changes of the current FIGO staging system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC et al (2017) Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 317:1224–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de la Orden SG, Reza MM, Blasco JA et al (2008) Laparoscopic hysterectomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palomba S, Falbo A, Mocciaro R et al (2009) Laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Gynecol Oncol 112:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scalici J, Laughlin BB, Finan MA et al (2015) The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACS-NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 136:512–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fader AN, Seamon LG, Escobar PF et al (2012) Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy in women with high grade endometrial cancer: a multi-site study performed at high volume cancer centers. Gynecol Oncol 126:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Favero G, Anton C, Le X et al (2016) Oncologic safety of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of type II endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:1673–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monterossi G, Ghezzi F, Vizza E et al (2017) minimally invasive approach in type ii endometrial cancer: is it wise and safe? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gao H, Zhang Z (2015) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of high-risk endometrial cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koskas M, Jozwiak M, Fournier M et al (2016) Long-term oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in high-risk endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer 65:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Obermair A, Manolitsas TP, Leung Y et al (2004) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrence and survival. Gynecol Oncol 92:789–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambrou NC, Gómez-Marín O, Mirhashemi R et al (2004) Optimal surgical cytoreduction in patients with Stage III and Stage IV endometrial carcinoma: a study of morbidity and survival. Gynecol Oncol 93:653–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papadia A, Bellati F, Ditto A et al (2015) Surgical treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer: time for a paradigm shift. Ann Surg Oncol 22:4204–4210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Salerno MG et al (2014) Secondary analyses from a randomized clinical trial: age as the key prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:363.e1–363.e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC et al (2000) Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet 355:1404–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL et al (2004) A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 92:744–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie, S3-Leitlinie Endometriumkarzinom, Version 1.0 April 2018. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/032-034OLl_S3_Endometriumkarzinom-Diagnostik-Therpie-Nachsorge_2018-04.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital of Bern and University of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics“Sapienza” University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecological OncologyKK Women’s and Children’s HospitalSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations