Cargando…
Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study
BACKGROUND: Recent studies comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer have reported a worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). However, in the patients with microscopic disease, there was no survival difference and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9142398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35638032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103507 |
_version_ | 1784715566336966656 |
---|---|
author | Hayek, Judy Mowzoon, Mia Demissie, Saleshi Palileo, Albert Serur, Eli Goldberg, Gary L. Alagkiozidis, Ioannis |
author_facet | Hayek, Judy Mowzoon, Mia Demissie, Saleshi Palileo, Albert Serur, Eli Goldberg, Gary L. Alagkiozidis, Ioannis |
author_sort | Hayek, Judy |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recent studies comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer have reported a worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). However, in the patients with microscopic disease, there was no survival difference and the optimal surgical approach for microscopic cervical cancer remains unclear. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified a cohort of women who underwent hysterectomy as the primary treatment for stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer between January 2010 and December 2016. Using multivariable logistic regression, our primary outcome was to compare overall survival between the open and MIS groups. The data was stratified for simple and radical hysterectomies. Secondary endpoint was comparison of readmission rates and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We identified 6230 patients with stage IA1 and IA2 cervical cancer that underwent hysterectomy as primary treatment. 4054 of these women (65%) underwent MIS. There was no difference in age, lympho-vascular invasion, number of lymph nodes retrieved and histology between the two groups. In the overall cohort, there was no difference in survival between the open and the MIS group (Hazard ratio for the open group 1.23; CI 0.92–1.63). Post-operative radiation therapy was more common in the open group (5.24% vs 4.09%, p value < 0.02). The mean LOS (1.35 days vs 3.08 days) was shorter in MIS group (p value < 0.0001). No difference was found in the readmission rates (60% for the MIS group vs 55% for the open group; p value 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that MIS is associated with similar overall survival and shorter length of hospital stay compared to the open hysterectomy in women with stage IA cervical cancer. Based on this large data set, MIS appears to be a safe and effective surgical approach for women with stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9142398 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91423982022-05-29 Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study Hayek, Judy Mowzoon, Mia Demissie, Saleshi Palileo, Albert Serur, Eli Goldberg, Gary L. Alagkiozidis, Ioannis Ann Med Surg (Lond) Cohort Study BACKGROUND: Recent studies comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer have reported a worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). However, in the patients with microscopic disease, there was no survival difference and the optimal surgical approach for microscopic cervical cancer remains unclear. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified a cohort of women who underwent hysterectomy as the primary treatment for stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer between January 2010 and December 2016. Using multivariable logistic regression, our primary outcome was to compare overall survival between the open and MIS groups. The data was stratified for simple and radical hysterectomies. Secondary endpoint was comparison of readmission rates and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We identified 6230 patients with stage IA1 and IA2 cervical cancer that underwent hysterectomy as primary treatment. 4054 of these women (65%) underwent MIS. There was no difference in age, lympho-vascular invasion, number of lymph nodes retrieved and histology between the two groups. In the overall cohort, there was no difference in survival between the open and the MIS group (Hazard ratio for the open group 1.23; CI 0.92–1.63). Post-operative radiation therapy was more common in the open group (5.24% vs 4.09%, p value < 0.02). The mean LOS (1.35 days vs 3.08 days) was shorter in MIS group (p value < 0.0001). No difference was found in the readmission rates (60% for the MIS group vs 55% for the open group; p value 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that MIS is associated with similar overall survival and shorter length of hospital stay compared to the open hysterectomy in women with stage IA cervical cancer. Based on this large data set, MIS appears to be a safe and effective surgical approach for women with stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer. Elsevier 2022-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9142398/ /pubmed/35638032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103507 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Cohort Study Hayek, Judy Mowzoon, Mia Demissie, Saleshi Palileo, Albert Serur, Eli Goldberg, Gary L. Alagkiozidis, Ioannis Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title_full | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title_fullStr | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title_short | Minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1A1 and stage 1A2 cervical cancer: A retrospective database cohort study |
title_sort | minimally invasive versus open surgery for women with stage 1a1 and stage 1a2 cervical cancer: a retrospective database cohort study |
topic | Cohort Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9142398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35638032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103507 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hayekjudy minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT mowzoonmia minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT demissiesaleshi minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT palileoalbert minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT serureli minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT goldberggaryl minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy AT alagkiozidisioannis minimallyinvasiveversusopensurgeryforwomenwithstage1a1andstage1a2cervicalcanceraretrospectivedatabasecohortstudy |