Oncologic Outcome of Patients with (Low-Risk) Endometrial Carcinoma Undergoing Laparotomy versus Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

Surgical Treatment for Endometrial Cancer, Hysterectomy Performed via Minimally Invasive Routes Compared with Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as the standard of care for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have focused on outcomes reported solely from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overlooking valuable data from non-randomised studies. This inaugural systematic review and network meta-analysis comprehensively compares clinical and oncological outcomes between MIS and open surgery for early-stage EC, incorporating evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020186959). All original research of any experimental design reporting clinical and oncological outcomes of surgical treatment for endometrial cancer was included. Study selection was restricted to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles published 1 January 1995-31 December 2021. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 99 studies were included in the network meta-analysis, comprising 181,716 women and 14 outcomes. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery demonstrated reduced blood loss and length of hospital stay but increased operating time. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a significant reduction in ileus (OR = 0.40, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.87) and total intra-operative complications (OR = 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.75) as well as a higher disease-free survival (OR = 2.45, 95% CrI: 1.04-6.34). Conclusions: For treating early endometrial cancer, minimal-access surgery via robotic-assisted or laparoscopic techniques appears safer and more efficacious than open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with fewer complications and favourable oncological outcomes.

Prognosis and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery on Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma: Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The prognosis and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LPS) and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients were compared.

Methods

Data as of May 2021 were retrieved from databases like PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The study involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or case-control studies for comparing the effects of LPS and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on EC treatment. The primary outcomes included duration of operation, blood loss, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate/disease-free survival (DFS) rate and 3-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

A total of 24 studies were involved, and all of them were cohort studies except 1 RCT and 1 case-control study. There was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery (MD = −0.06, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.25) or RS (MD = −0.15, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.96). In comparison with the open surgery, LPS remarkably reduced blood loss (MD = −0.43, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.29), LOS (MD = −0.71, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.50), and the complication occurrence rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.95). However, LPS and RS saw no difference in blood loss (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.79). Besides, in comparison with RS, LPS prominently shortened the LOS (MD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.40) but increased the complication occurrence rate (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.57 to 1.92). In contrast to open surgery or RS, LPS saw no difference in occurrence rate (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01; RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.53), 3-year PFS/DFS (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.96), and 3-year OS (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.04; RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.60).

Conclusion

In sum, LPS was better than open surgery, which manifested in the aspects of less blood loss, shorter LOS, and fewer complications. LPS, therefore, was the most suitable option for EC patients. Nevertheless, LPS had no advantage over RS, and sufficient prospective RCTs are needed to further confirm its strengths.

The effect of surgical approach on the outcomes and prognosis of high-risk histologic endometrioid carcinomas

Background

High-risk histologic endometrioid carcinomas include poorly differentiated endometrial carcinoma (PDEC), uterine clear cell carcinoma (UCCC), uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS), and uterine papillary serous carcinomas (UPCS). The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the effect of open surgery and minimally invasive surgery on the prognosis of patients with high-risk endometrial cancer tissue types.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted to investigate 57 UCS or UPCS, 53 UCCC, and 110 PDEC patients receiving initial treatment at the Department of Gynecology in Shaanxi Provincial Tumor hospital and the Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University between February 2010 and January 2015. Prognostic factors were determined using univariate/multivariate analysis, and survival rates were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox regression model was adopted to assess the independent prognostic factors.

Results

Two hundred and twenty patients who met the criteria were included in this study. At the end of follow-up period, 94 patients were still alive. Univariate analysis found that the survival time of the patients was related to staging, adjuvant therapy, and surgical approach. Multivariate analysis revealed that surgical approach, staging, pathology, and adjuvant therapy were independent prognostic factors.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive surgery has a shorter survival time compared to open surgery in women with PDEC, UCCC, UCS, and UPCS. Multivariate analysis confirmed that staging, pathological type, surgical approach, and postoperative adjuvant therapy are independent risk factors for prognosis and affect the survival of women with PDEC, UCCC, UCS, and UPCS.