Survival rates of patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer with cervical involvement

ObjectivesTo evaluate the current patterns of use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, including traditional, robotic-assisted, and single-port laparoscopy, by Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members and to compare the results to those of our 2004 and 2007 surveys.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology members were surveyed through an online or mailed-paper survey. Data were analyzed and compared with results of our prior surveys.ResultsFour hundred six (32%) of 1279 SGO members responded. Eighty-three percent of respondents (n = 337) performed traditional laparoscopic surgery (compared with 84% in 2004 and 91% in 2007). Ninety-seven percent of respondents performed robotic surgery (compared with 27% in 2007). When respondents were asked to indicate procedures that they performed with the robot but not with traditional laparoscopy, 75% indicated radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Overall, 70% of respondents indicated that hysterectomy and staging for uterine cancer was the procedure they most commonly performed with a minimally invasive approach. Only 17% of respondents who performed minimally invasive surgery performed single-port laparoscopy, and only 5% of respondents indicated that single-port laparoscopy has an important or very important role in the field.ConclusionsSince our prior surveys, we found a significant increase in the overall use and indications for robotic surgery. Radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer and total hysterectomy and staging for endometrial cancer were procedures found to be significantly more appropriate for the robotic platform in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. The indications for laparoscopy have expanded beyond endometrial cancer staging to include surgical management of early-stage cervical and ovarian cancers, but the use of single-port laparoscopy remains limited.

Download Full-text

Minimally Invasive Surgery Rate as a Quality Metric for Endometrial Cancer

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology ◽

10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.011 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (6) ◽

pp. 1389-1394

Author(s):

Rosa M. Polan ◽

Edward J. Tanner ◽

Emma L. Barber

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Invasive Surgery ◽

Quality Metric

Download Full-text

Under-utilization of minimally invasive surgery in the management of endometrial cancer: A Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample study (HCUP-NIS)

Gynecologic Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.385 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 137 ◽

pp. 154

Author(s):

A. Nickles Fader ◽

R. Matsuno ◽

A.K. Sinno ◽

E.J. Tanner ◽

K.C. Long ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Healthcare Cost ◽

Invasive Surgery ◽

National Inpatient Sample

Download Full-text

Endometriumkarzinom: Wie Uterusmanipulatoren das Outcome in der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie beeinflussen

Karger Kompass Onkologie ◽

10.1159/000520994 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 180-181

Author(s):

Ingolf Juhasz-Boess ◽

Patrick Molnar

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Invasive Surgery ◽

International Federation ◽

Hazard Ratio ◽

Uterine Manipulator ◽

Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽

Pattern Of Recurrence

Background: There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience. Objective: To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. Study design: We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence. Results: A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P<.001). The use of the uterine manipulator was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27–4.20; P = .006). The use of uterine manipulator in uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] I-II) was associated with lower disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.97; P = .027) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.83; P = .026). No differences were found regarding the pattern of recurrence between both groups (chi-square statistic, 1.74; P = .63). Conclusion: In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results.

Download Full-text