6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Use and outcomes of minimally invasive hysterectomy for women with nonendometrioid endometrial cancers

      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="d442577e233">Background</h5> <p id="P1">Minimally invasive hysterectomy is now routinely used for women with uterine cancer. Most studies of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer have focused on low-risk, endometrioid tumors with few reports of the safety of the procedure for women with higher risk histologic subtypes. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d442577e238">Objective</h5> <p id="P2">To examine the utilization and survival associated with minimally invasive hysterectomy for women with uterine cancer and high-risk histologic subtypes. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d442577e243">Study Design</h5> <p id="P3">We used the National Cancer Database was used to identify women with stages I-III uterine cancer who underwent hysterectomy from 2010-2014. Women with serous, clear cell carcinomas and sarcomas were examined. Women who had laparoscopic or robotic-assisted hysterectomy were compared to those who underwent open abdominal hysterectomy. After a propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighted analysis, the effect of MIS hysterectomy on overall, 30-day, and 90-day mortality was examined for each histologic subtype of uterine cancer. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d442577e248">Results</h5> <p id="P4">Of 94,507 patients identified, 64,417 (68.2%) underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy. Among women with endometrioid tumors (n=81,115), 70.8% underwent MIS hysterectomy. The rates of MIS in those with non-endometrioid tumors (n=13,392) was 57.6% for serous carcinomas, 57.0% for clear cell tumors, 47.3% for sarcomas, 32.2% for leiomyosarcomas, 47.9% for stromal sarcomas and 48.5% for carcinosarcomas. Performance of MIS increased across all histologic subtypes between 2010 and 2014. For non-endometrioid subtypes, robotic-assisted procedures accounted for 47.9%-75.7% of MIS hysterectomies by 2014. In a multivariable model, women with non-endometrioid tumors were less likely to undergo MIS than those with endometrioid tumors (P&lt;0.05). There was no association between route of surgery and 30-day, 90-day, or overall mortality for any of the non-endometrioid histologic subtypes. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d442577e253">Conclusions</h5> <p id="P5">The use of minimally invasive surgery is increasing rapidly for women with stage I-III non-endometrioid uterine tumors. Performance of minimally invasive surgery does not appear to adversely impact survival. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d442577e258">Condensation</h5> <p id="P6">The use of minimally invasive surgery for women with stage I-III non-endometrioid uterine tumors does not appear to adversely impact survival. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
          American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
          Elsevier BV
          00029378
          November 2018
          November 2018
          : 219
          : 5
          : 463.e1-463.e12
          Article
          10.1016/j.ajog.2018.07.028
          6239941
          30086293
          84d79ab1-657a-4275-a8b7-5a655b05ebad
          © 2018

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article