Minimally invasive approach in endometrial cancer with lower uterine segment involvement in stage ≥ II: A retrospective study

Oncological outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial Cancer patients with varying prognostic risks: a retrospective cohort study based on the ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2020 guidelines

BACKGROUND

Non-endometrioid endometrial carcinomas (NEEC) are characterized by their rarity and adverse prognoses. This study evaluates the outcomes of open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in NEEC patients stratified by prognostic risks according to the 2020 ESGO-ESTRO-ESP risk classification guidelines.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 99 NEEC patients who underwent initial surgery at Fujian University Cancer Hospital. Patients were categorized into two groups: those undergoing MIS and those undergoing open surgery. We compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between these groups. Cox regression analysis was employed to identify risk factors for DFS, which were further validated via bootstrap statistical methods.

RESULTS

The study included 31 patients in the MIS group and 68 in the open surgery group. The demographics and clinical characteristics such as age, body mass index, comorbidities, histological subtypes, and FIGO stage were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The MIS group experienced ten recurrences (1 vaginal, 2 lymph nodes, 7 distant metastases), whereas the open surgery group had seven recurrences (1 vaginal, 3 lymph nodes, 1 pelvis, 2 distant metastases), yielding recurrence rates of 10.3% versus 25.6% (P = 0.007). Besides lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), surgical approach was also identified as an independent prognostic factor for DFS in high-risk patients (P = 0.037, 95% CI: 1.062-7.409). The constructed nomogram demonstrated a robust predictive capability with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767. Survival analysis for high- and intermediate-risk patients showed no significant differences in OS between the two groups (Phigh risk = 0.275; Pintermediate-risk = 0.201). However, high-risk patients in the MIS group exhibited significantly worse DFS (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This investigation is the inaugural study to assess the impact of surgical approaches on NEEC patients within the framework of the latest ESGO-ESTRO-ESP risk classifications. Although MIS may offer clinical advantages, it should be approached with caution in high-risk NEEC patients due to associated poorer DFS outcomes.