Abstract
Introduction: Recently published unfavourable results of endoscopic radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer compared to open surgery raises the need for auditing treatment results of endoscopic staging surgery for endometrial cancer. Aim: Comparison of progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS) between endometrial cancer patients treated with laparoscopic (LSC) and open surgical techniques. Method: Retrospective analysis was performed to compare clinicopathological and survival data of endometrial cancer patients who had either laparoscopic or open staging surgery between 2013 and 2019 at the Gynaecological Oncology Unit of the University of Debrecen, Hungary. Distribution of the most relevant prognostic factors were compared with χ2 and t-tests. Frequencies of progressive disease and disease-specific deaths were compared in the Cox-model, while progression-free and overall survival curves were compared with the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The frequency of endometrioid, serous papillary, mixed Müllerian, adenosquamous and other histological types in the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (p = 0.3356). The frequency of grade 1, 2 and 3 tumours in the endoscopic and open groups showed significant differences (p = 0.0036). Pathological stage-distribution (IA, IB, II, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC1, IIIC2) of endoscopic cases and open cases was also statistically different (p = 0.0048). The mean number of removed lymph-nodes was higher in the open surgery group (14.3 vs. 9,3, p<0.0001). The frequency of recurrence did not show significant difference between the two groups, in contrast to the frequency of disease-specific deaths (2/120 vs. 29/345, p = 0.01; 2/120 vs. 17/345, p = 0.12). In the Cox-model, progression-free survival and overall survival showed a hazard ratio favouring laparoscopic surgery, however, the range of 95% confidence intervals showed no statistical significance (PFS LSC vs. open: HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.084-1.538; OS LSC vs. open: HR = 0.603, 95% CI = 0.135-2.693). Conclusion: Progression-free and overall survival of endoscopically staged endometrial cancer is not worse than those of patients staged with open surgery. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(10): 382-388.
Highlights
Published unfavourable results of endoscopic radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer compared to open surgery raises the need for auditing treatment results of endoscopic staging surgery for endometrial cancer
Comparison of progression-free and overall survival between endometrial cancer patients treated with laparoscopic and open surgical techniques
Recently published unfavourable results of endoscopic radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer compared to open surgery raises the need for auditing treatment results of endoscopic staging surgery for endometrial cancer
Summary
A laparoszkópos és a nyitott műtéti technikával operált méhtestrák progressziómentes és teljes túlélési eredményeinek összehasonlítása. Célkitűzés: Az endoszkópos és a nyitott műtéti technikával kezelt méhtestrák gyógyulási eredményeinek összehasonlítása. A G1, G2, G3 differenciáltsági fokú folyamatok előfordulási aránya az endoszkópos és a nyílt műtéti csoportban jelentősen különbözött (p = 0,0036). A progresszív betegség gyakorisága magasabb volt a nyitott műtéti csoportban, de a betegségspecifikus halálesetek előfordulási gyakorisága jelentősen nem különbözött a két csoportban (recidíva 2/120 vs 29/345, p = 0,01; halálozás 2/120 vs 17/345, p = 0,12); a laparoszkópos esetek progressziómentes és teljes túlélése nem különbözött jelentősen a nyitott műtéttel operált esetekétől (progresszió laparoszkópos vs nyílt műtét: HR = 0,36, 95% CI = 0,084–1,538; halálozás laparoszkópos vs nyílt műtét: HR = 0,603, 95% CI = 0,135–2,693). Következtetés: Az endoszkópos technikával operált méhtestrák progressziómentes és teljes túlélése nem rosszabb, mint a nyílt műtéti technikával kezelt betegeké.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.