Sasano T, Mabuchi S, Komura N, Maeda M, Kamiura S, Morishima T, Miyashiro I. Evaluation of survival outcomes between minimally invasive and open surgery in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based study in Osaka Japan.
Jpn J Clin Oncol 2023;
53:791-797. [PMID:
37366149 DOI:
10.1093/jjco/hyad067]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 06/28/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To compare the oncological outcomes between Japanese women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and those who underwent open surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer.
METHODS
This population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Osaka Cancer Registry from 2011 to 2018. Surgically treated patients for localized (uterine-confined) endometrial cancer were identified. Patients were classified into two groups according to the type of surgery (minimally invasive surgery group and open-surgery group), pathological risk factors (low-risk and high-risk), and year of diagnosis (Group 1, 2011-14; Group 2, 2015-18). Overall survival was compared between the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups.
RESULTS
In the analyses including all patients, there was no difference in overall survival between the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups (P = 0.0797). The 4-year overall survival rate was 97.1 and 95.7% in the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups, respectively. When investigated according to pathological risks, there were no differences in overall survival between the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups in both the low- and high-risk groups. In the low-risk group, the 4-year overall survival rates in the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups were 97.7 and 96.5%, respectively. In the high-risk group, the 4-year overall survival rates in the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups were 91.2 and 93.2%, respectively. Similarly, there were no differences in overall survival between the minimally invasive surgery and open-surgery groups in both Group 1 (P = 0.4479 in low-risk and P = 0.1826 in high-risk groups) and Group 2 (P = 0.1750 in low-risk and P = 0.0799 in high-risk groups).
CONCLUSION
Our study provides epidemiological evidence that minimally invasive surgery is an effective alternative to open surgery in Japanese patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.
Collapse