Suppr超能文献

非子宫内膜样型子宫内膜癌的微创与开放分期手术的生存与并发症比较。

Comparison of survival and complications between minimally invasive and open staging surgeries in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Eur J Surg Oncol. 2024 Oct;50(10):108584. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108584. Epub 2024 Aug 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare survival and complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery and evaluate related risk factors in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Clinicopathologic characteristics; survival outcomes; complications; and prognostic factors associated with progression-free survival and overall survival were compared among patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent primary staging surgery using laparoscopic, robotic, or open abdominal surgery (2004-2017).

RESULTS

In total, 91 patients were included: 41 and 50 underwent minimally invasive surgery and open surgery, respectively. The minimally invasive surgery and open surgery groups showed similar progression-free survival (5-year progression-free survival rate, 58.7 % vs. 58.5 %; P = .925) and overall survival (5-year overall survival rate, 73.6 % vs. 80.3 %; P = .834). Intraoperative (7.2 % vs. 6.0 %; P = .111) and postoperative surgical complications (14.6 % vs. 26.0 %; P = .165) were similar between the groups. However, blood loss was lower (mean, 305.1 vs. 561.2 ml, P < .001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean, 8.2 vs. 15.4 days, P < .001) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Using multivariate analysis, lymphovascular space invasion was identified as poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.054; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.521-6.132; P = .002) and overall survival (adjusted HR, 3.918; 95 % CI, 1.455-10.551; P = .007), whereas age ≥ 60 years was poor prognostic factor for only overall survival (adjusted HR, 5.0953; 95 % CI, 1.660-15.378; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical outcomes did not differ between the minimally invasive and open surgery group in patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Lymphovascular space invasion was a significant survival factor in this context.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较非子宫内膜样子宫内膜癌患者接受微创手术和开放手术的生存和并发症情况,并评估相关的预后因素。

方法

对 2004 年至 2017 年间接受腹腔镜、机器人或开腹初次分期手术的非子宫内膜样子宫内膜癌患者的临床病理特征、生存结局、并发症以及与无进展生存期和总生存期相关的预后因素进行比较。

结果

共纳入 91 例患者:41 例行微创手术,50 例行开放手术。微创手术组和开放手术组的无进展生存率(5 年无进展生存率,58.7% vs. 58.5%;P=0.925)和总生存率(5 年总生存率,73.6% vs. 80.3%;P=0.834)相似。两组术中(7.2% vs. 6.0%;P=0.111)和术后手术并发症(14.6% vs. 26.0%;P=0.165)发生率相似。然而,微创手术组的出血量较低(均值,305.1 比 561.2ml,P<0.001),住院时间较短(均值,8.2 比 15.4 天,P<0.001)。多因素分析显示,脉管侵犯是无进展生存期(调整后的危险比[HR],3.054;95%置信区间[CI],1.521-6.132;P=0.002)和总生存期(调整后的 HR,3.918;95%CI,1.455-10.551;P=0.007)的不良预后因素,而年龄≥60 岁仅为总生存期的不良预后因素(调整后的 HR,5.0953;95%CI,1.660-15.378;P=0.004)。

结论

非子宫内膜样子宫内膜癌患者微创手术组与开放手术组的手术结果无差异。在这种情况下,脉管侵犯是一个重要的生存因素。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验