4.6 Article

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrence and survival

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 92, Issue 3, Pages 789-793

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.12.001

Keywords

endometrial; cancer; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The impact of laparoscopic surgery on the patterns of recurrence and on prognosis in patients with endometrial cancer remains unclear. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of the laparoscopic approach on patterns of recurrence, disease-free (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with endometrial cancer. Methods. A retrospective review of patients presenting with stages 1-4 endometrial cancer who had a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with or without surgical staging was performed. Patients either had a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) or a total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Patterns of recurrence, DFS and OS were the study endpoints. Results. The surgical intent was TLH in 226 patients (44.3%) and TAH in 284 patients (55.7%). TLH was converted to laparotomy in 11 patients. Patients for TLH were younger, heavier, and had a higher ASA score and were more likely to present with early-stage, well-differentiated tumors and were less likely to have undergone lymphadenectomy. Median follow-up was 29.4 months. DFS and OS were adversely and independently affected by increasing age, higher stage, higher grade, and by deeper myometrial invasion, whereas the intention to treat (TLH vs. TAH) did not influence DFS or OS. Patterns of recurrence were similar in both groups and no port-site metastasis was noted in the TLH group. Conclusions. The incidence of port-site metastasis in early-stage endometrial cancer treated by TLH is low. Laparoscopic management does not seem to worsen the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available