Favero Giovanni, Anton Cristina, Le Xin, Silva E Silva Alexandre, Dogan Nasuh Utku, Pfiffer Tatiana, Köhler Christhardt, Baracat Edmund Chada, Carvalho Jesus Paula
*Department of Gynecology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo-ICESP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; †Department of Advanced Gynecologic Surgery and Oncology, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg, Germany; and ‡Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Nov;26(9):1673-1678. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000803.
Laparoscopy is considered the method of choice in the operative treatment of type I endometrial carcinoma (EC). However, there is a paucity of data regarding the safety of endoscopy for type II EC because these malignancies have several biological similarities with ovarian cancer.
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, operative outcomes, and oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in patients with type II EC.
A retrospective study with histologically confirmed serous or clear-cell EC without peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by laparoscopy (G1) or laparotomy (G2) was conducted. Procedures included hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.
From 2009 to 2015, 89 patients were included; 53 women underwent laparoscopy and 36 underwent laparotomy. No relevant epidemiological or oncologic difference between groups was observed. The mean number of removed pelvic nodes was 16 [±10] and 12 [±13] in group 1 (G1) and group 2 (G2), respectively (P = 0.127). The mean number of dissected para-aortic nodes was significantly greater in the laparoscopic group (11 [±9] vs 6 [±9], P = 0.006). Para-aortic metastasis was significantly more often observed in the endoscopy group (26% vs 13%, P = 0.04). Adjuvant therapies were given to 86% of the patients in the study and 75% in the control group (P = 0.157). No excessive blood loss, casualty related to surgery, intraoperative complication, or conversion to laparotomy occurred in G1. Ten (18%) women from G1 and 36% (13/36) in G2 developed relevant postoperative complications (P = 0.03). The median duration of follow-up was 38 months for the laparoscopy and 47 months for the open surgery (P = 0.12). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival were similar, 86% versus 78% and 58% versus 51% for G1 and G2, respectively (P = 0.312).
Laparoscopy is oncologically at least not inferior to laparotomy for the surgical treatment of type II EC. Endoscopic techniques are feasible, effective, result in significantly less morbidity, and improved quality staging. Although statistical significance was not reached, laparoscopy was associated with superior oncologic results.
腹腔镜检查被认为是I型子宫内膜癌(EC)手术治疗的首选方法。然而,关于II型EC内镜检查安全性的数据较少,因为这些恶性肿瘤与卵巢癌有一些生物学相似性。
本研究旨在评估腹腔镜手术治疗II型EC患者的可行性、手术结果和肿瘤学安全性。
对经组织学证实为浆液性或透明细胞EC且无腹膜转移的患者进行回顾性研究,这些患者接受了腹腔镜手术(G1组)或开腹手术(G2组)。手术包括子宫切除术、双侧输卵管卵巢切除术、大网膜切除术以及盆腔和腹主动脉旁淋巴结清扫术。
2009年至2015年,共纳入89例患者;53例女性接受了腹腔镜手术,36例接受了开腹手术。两组之间未观察到相关的流行病学或肿瘤学差异。G1组和G2组切除的盆腔淋巴结平均数量分别为16 [±10]和12 [±13](P = 0.127)。腹腔镜组清扫的腹主动脉旁淋巴结平均数量显著更多(11 [±9]对6 [±9],P = 0.006)。腹主动脉旁转移在腹腔镜检查组中更常观察到(26%对13%,P = 0.04)。研究中86%的患者和对照组75%的患者接受了辅助治疗(P = 0.157)。G1组未发生过多失血、与手术相关的伤亡、术中并发症或转为开腹手术的情况。G1组10名(18%)女性和G2组36%(13/36)的女性发生了相关的术后并发症(P = 0.03)。腹腔镜手术组的中位随访时间为38个月,开腹手术组为47个月(P = 0.12)。G1组和G2组的5年总生存率和无病生存率相似,分别为86%对78%和58%对51%(P = 0.312)。
对于II型EC的手术治疗,腹腔镜检查在肿瘤学方面至少不劣于开腹手术。内镜技术是可行、有效的,发病率显著降低,且分期质量得到改善。尽管未达到统计学显著性,但腹腔镜手术与更好的肿瘤学结果相关。