Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer

Purpose Despite the potential benefits of minimally invasive hysterectomy for uterine cancer, population-level data describing the procedure's safety in unselected patients are lacking. We examined the use of minimally invasive surgery and the association between the route of the procedure and long-term survival. Methods We used the SEER-Medicare database to identify women with stage I-III uterine cancer who underwent hysterectomy from 2006 to 2011. Patients who underwent abdominal hysterectomy were compared with those who had minimally invasive hysterectomy (laparoscopic and robot-assisted). Perioperative morbidity, use of adjuvant therapy, and long-term survival were examined after propensity score balancing. Results We identified 6,304 patients, including 4,139 (65.7%) who underwent abdominal hysterectomy and 2,165 (34.3%) who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy; performance of minimally invasive hysterectomy increased from 9.3% in 2006 to 61.7% in 2011. Robot-assisted procedures accounted for 62.3% of the minimally invasive operations. Compared with women who underwent abdominal hysterectomy, minimally invasive hysterectomy was associated with a lower overall complication rate (22.7% v 39.7%; P < .001), and lower perioperative mortality (0.6% v 1.1%), but these women were more likely to receive adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (34.3% v 31.3%) and brachytherapy (33.6% v 31.0%; P < .05). The complication rate was higher after robot-assisted hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy (23.7% v 19.5%; P = .03). There was no association between the use of minimally invasive hysterectomy and either overall (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.04) or cancer-specific (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16) mortality. Conclusion Minimally invasive hysterectomy does not appear to compromise long-term survival for women with endometrial cancer.