Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: A 9-year study

Survival outcomes after surgical management of endometrial cancer: Analysis after the first 10-year experience of robotic surgery in a single center

OBJECTIVES

To report the 5-year survival rates of patients undergone surgery for endometrial cancer, within a 10-year study.

METHODS

Single institution series with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The 5-year survival outcomes of patients managed by robotics, laparoscopy and open surgery during the same period were compared. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty-three consecutive patients were analysed. Open surgery showed a higher rate of abdominal recurrences (17.2% vs. 3.3%; p < 0.001); no differences were recorded in terms of vaginal, nodal or distant recurrences between open and minimally invasive surgery. At multivariable analyses, type II histology, peritoneal cytology and lympho-vascular space invasion were independent predictors for survival. Based on each FIGO (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage, no differences were found in terms of 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival between the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical route does not affect the 5-year survival in patients with endometrial cancer. Both robotics and laparoscopy are confirmed as viable options.

Radical Hysterectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Bulky-Size Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis between the Robotic and Abdominal Approaches

Radical hysterectomy (RH) is the standard treatment for early stage cervical cancer, but the surgical approach for locally bulky-size cervical cancer (LBS-CC) is still unclear. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of women with LBS-CC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and subsequent RH between the robotic (R-RH) and abdominal approaches (A-RH). Between 2012 and 2014, 39 women with LBS-CC FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB2–IIB were treated with NACT-R-RH (n = 18) or NACT-A-RH (n = 21). Surgical parameters and prognosis were compared. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups, but the NACT-R-RH group had significantly more patients with FIGO stage IIB disease, received multi-agent-based NACT, and had a lower percentage of deep stromal invasion than the NACT-A-RH group. After NACT-R-RH, surgical parameters were better, but survival outcomes, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were significantly worse. On multivariate analysis, FIGO stage IIB contributed to worse DFS (p = 0.003) and worse OS (p = 0.012) in the NACT-A-RH group. Women with LBS-CC treated with NACT-R-RH have better perioperative outcomes but poorer survival outcomes compared with those treated with NACT-A-RH. Thus, patients with FIGO stage IIB LBS-CC disease might not be suitable for surgery after multi-agent-based NACT.