96
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3999033e230">BACKGROUND</h5> <p id="P1">Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3999033e235">METHODS</h5> <p id="P2">We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010–2013 period at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000–2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3999033e240">RESULTS</h5> <p id="P3">In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Women treated with minimally invasive surgery were more often white, privately insured, and from ZIP Codes with higher socioeconomic status, had smaller, lower-grade tumors, and were more likely to have received a diagnosis later in the study period than women who underwent open surgery. Over a median follow-up of 45 months, the 4-year mortality was 9.1% among women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and 5.3% among those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.22; P = 0.002 by the log-rank test). Before the adoption of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (i.e., in the 2000–2006 period), the 4-year relative survival rate among women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer remained stable (annual percentage change, 0.3%; 95% CI, −0.1 to 0.6). The adoption of minimally invasive surgery coincided with a decline in the 4-year relative survival rate of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4) per year after 2006 (P = 0.01 for change of trend). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d3999033e245">CONCLUSIONS</h5> <p id="P4">In an epidemiologic study, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery among women with stage IA2 or IB1 cervical carcinoma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.) </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study.

              Estimation of treatment effects with causal interpretation from observational data is complicated because exposure to treatment may be confounded with subject characteristics. The propensity score, the probability of treatment exposure conditional on covariates, is the basis for two approaches to adjusting for confounding: methods based on stratification of observations by quantiles of estimated propensity scores and methods based on weighting observations by the inverse of estimated propensity scores. We review popular versions of these approaches and related methods offering improved precision, describe theoretical properties and highlight their implications for practice, and present extensive comparisons of performance that provide guidance for practical use. 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS)
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                October 31 2018
                October 31 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vincent Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School (A.M., M.G.C.), and the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, and the Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital (N.L.K.) — all in Boston; the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prentice Women’s Hospital (D.J.M., J.Y., B.-L.L.S., A.A., E.L.B., M.K., S.S.), and the Division of...
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMoa1804923
                6464372
                30379613
                03245dd5-9445-4804-b008-6ae88c349f3a
                © 2018

                http://www.nejmgroup.org/legal/terms-of-use.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article