Comparison of minimally invasive versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial carcinosarcoma. Issue 8 (20th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pedra Nobre, Silvana; Mueller, Jennifer J.; Gardner, Ginger J.; Long Roche, Kara; Brown, Carol L; Soslow, Robert A; Alektiar, Kaled M.; Sonoda, Yukio; Broach, Vance A.; Jewell, Elizabeth L.; Zivanovic, Oliver; Chi, Dennis S; Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R; Leitao, Jr., Mario M.
• Is Part Of: International journal of gynecological cancer. Volume 30:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1162
• Page End: 1168
• Publication Date: 2020-07-20
• Subjects: carcinosarcoma -- gynecologic surgical procedures -- postoperative complications -- surgical oncology -- surgical procedures -- operative; Generative organs, Female -- Cancer -- Periodicals; 616.99465
• DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001573
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1048-891X

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive and open surgery in the treatment of endometrial carcinosarcoma. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients with newly diagnosed endometrial carcinosarcoma who underwent primary surgery via any approach at our institution from January 2009 to January 2018. Patients with known bulky disease identified on preoperative imaging were excluded. The χ 2 and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to estimate survival, and compared using the log rank test. Results: We identified 147 eligible patients, of whom 37 (25%) underwent an open approach and 110 (75%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Within the minimally invasive group, 92 (84%) of 110 patients underwent a robotic procedure and 14 (13%) underwent a laparoscopic procedure. Four minimally invasive cases (4%) were converted to open procedures. Median age, body mass index, operative time, stage, complication grade, and use of adjuvant treatment were clinically and statistically similar between groups. Median length of hospital stay in the open group was 4 days (range 3–21) compared with 1 day (range 0–6) in the minimally invasive group (p<0.001). The rates of any 30-day complication were 46% in the open and 8% in the minimally invasive group (p<0.001). The rates of grade 3 or higher complications were 5.4% and 1.8%, respectively (p=0.53). Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 30 months (range 0.4–121). Two-year progression-free survival rates were 52.8% (SE±8.4) in the open group and 58.5% (SE±5.1) in the minimally invasive group (p=0.7). Two-year disease-specific survival rates were 66.1% (SE±8.0) and 81.4% (SE±4.1), respectively (p=0.8). Conclusions: In patients with clinical stage I endometrial carcinosarcoma, minimally invasive compared with open surgery was not associated with poor oncologic outcomes, but with a shorter length of hospital stay and a lower rate of overall complications.