Dataset Information

Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Women With Presumed Stage I-II High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for harvesting para-aortic lymph nodes in presumed stage I-II, high-risk endometrial cancer patients. Methods: Patients with histologically proven endometrial cancer, presumed stage I-II with high-risk tumor features who had undergone hysterectomy, bilateral salpingoophorectomy, or pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by either laparoscopy or laparotomy in Samsung Medical Center from 2005 to 2017 were retrospectively investigated. The primary outcome was para-aortic lymph node count. Secondary outcomes were pelvic lymph node count, perioperative events, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 90 patients was included (35 for laparotomy, 55 for laparoscopy) for analysis. The mean (±SD) para-aortic lymph node count was 10.66 (±7.596) for laparotomy and 10.35 (±5.848) for laparoscopy (p = 0.827). Mean pelvic node count was 16.8 (±6.310) in the laparotomy group and 16.13 (±7.626) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.664). Lower estimated blood loss was shown in the laparoscopy group. There was no difference in perioperative outcome between the groups. Additional multivariate analysis showed that survival outcome was not affected by surgical methods in presumed stage I-II, high-risk endometrial cancer patients. Conclusions: Study results demonstrate comparable para-aortic lymph node count with less blood loss in laparoscopy over laparotomy. In women with presumed stage I-II, high-risk endometrial cancer, laparoscopy is a valid treatment modality.

SUBMITTER: Paik ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7155754 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Women With Presumed Stage I-II High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

Paik E Sun ES Baek Seung Hun SH Kang Jun Hyeok JH Jeong Soo Young SY Kim Myeong Seon MS Kim Woo Young WY Lee Yoo-Young YY Choi Chel Hun CH Lee Jeong-Won JW Kim Byoung-Gie BG Bae Duk-Soo DS Kim Tae-Joong TJ

Frontiers in oncology 20200407

<b>Objective:</b> To compare laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for harvesting para-aortic lymph nodes in presumed stage I-II, high-risk endometrial cancer patients. <b>Methods:</b> Patients with histologically proven endometrial cancer, presumed stage I-II with high-risk tumor features who had undergone hysterectomy, bilateral salpingoophorectomy, or pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by either laparoscopy or laparotomy in Samsung Medical Center from 2005 to 2017 were retrospectively invest ...[more]

PMID: 32318344

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRemoving more inframesenteric nodes is not only significantly increases the likelihood of finding metastasis for endometrial cancer, but also can add survival advantage. As most patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer are overweight or obesity, a high efficiency approach is important. Aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic, transperitoneal laparoscopic, and laparotomic para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial carcinoma staging.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data of all patients diagnosed with primary endometrial carcinoma who were treated at the Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019. The numbers of para-aortic lymph nodes, surgical time, complications, blood loss and hospital stay were compared. The patients' medical records and pathological reports were carefully reviewed. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.ResultsWe retrospectively compared patients who underwent extraperitoneal laparoscopy (Group E, n = 20), transperitoneal laparoscopy (group T, n = 21), and laparotomy (group L, n = 135). The median number of para-aortic lymph nodes was significantly higher in group E than in groups T and L (9.5, 5, and 6, respectively; p = 0.004 and 0.0004, respectively). All patients in group E underwent successfully dissection to the renal vessel level. The median operation time was significantly shorter in group L than in groups T and E (94, 174, and 233 min, respectively; p < 0.0001). The median estimated blood loss volume was higher in group L than in groups T and E (200, 100, and 142.5 ml, respectively; all comparisons p < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group L than in Groups T and E (6, 5, and 6 days, respectively; all comparisons p < 0.001).ConclusionThe extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach for staging endometrial carcinoma harvested higher numbers of para-aortic lymph nodes which could be considered for endometrial carcinoma staging, especially for para-aortic lymph node harvest.

Project description:Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis.Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate.Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.84, P?<?.001, I?=?12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69, P?<?.001, I?=?41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21-1.08, P?=?.077, I?=?0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72, P?<?.001, I?=?0). No publication bias was observed among included studies.PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the relative merits among robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between robotic surgery and laparoscopy or between robotic surgery and laparotomy for endometrial cancer were selected. The outcome measures included operating time (OT), number of complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), estimated blood loss (EBL), number of transfusions, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), and number of conversions. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 4420 patients, 3403 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparoscopy and 1017 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparotomy. The EBL (p?=?0.01) and number of conversions (p?=?0.0008) were significantly lower and the number of complications (p<0.0001) was significantly higher in robotic surgery than in laparoscopy. The OT, LOHS, number of transfusions, and TLNH showed no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. The number of complications (p<0.00001), LOHS (p<0.00001), EBL (p<0.00001), and number of transfusions (p?=?0.03) were significantly lower and the OT (p<0.00001) was significantly longer in robotic surgery than in laparotomy. The TLNH showed no significant difference between robotic surgery and laparotomy.ConclusionsRobotic surgery is generally safer and more reliable than laparoscopy and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer. Robotic surgery is associated with significantly lower EBL than both laparoscopy and laparotomy; fewer conversions but more complications than laparoscopy; and shorter LOHS, fewer complications, and fewer transfusions but a longer OT than laparoscopy. Further studies are required.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Women With Presumed Stage I-II High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

Publications

Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy in Women With Presumed Stage I-II High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets