Short- and long-term outcomes of vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted surgery in "oldest old" endometrial cancer.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109568
Giorgio Bogani, Francesco Raspagliesi, Mario Malzoni, Ilaria Cuccu, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Giovanni Scambia, Fabio Ghezzi, Jvan Casarin
{"title":"Short- and long-term outcomes of vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted surgery in \"oldest old\" endometrial cancer.","authors":"Giorgio Bogani, Francesco Raspagliesi, Mario Malzoni, Ilaria Cuccu, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Giovanni Scambia, Fabio Ghezzi, Jvan Casarin","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the safety and long-term effectiveness of minimally invasive approach in managing \"oldest old\" endometrial cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort, multi-institutional study. Consecutive patients, treated between 2000 and 2020, with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer patients, aged ≥85 years. Surgery-related outcomes of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgery were compared. Survival was evaluated in patients with at least 3-year follow-up data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Charts of 82 endometrial cancer patients \"oldest old\" were retrieved. Intermediate-high and high-risk endometrial cancer patients accounted for 26 (31.7 %) and 17 (20.7 %), respectively. In total, 12 (15 %), 45 (55 %), and 25 (30 %) patients underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgery, respectively. Looking at surgery-related outcomes, robotic-assisted surgery correlated with a longer operative time (p < 0.001) and longer length of hospital stay (p = 0.002) in comparison to laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. Overall, seven (8.5 %) conversions from the planned approach occurred. The surgical approach did not influence disease-free survival (p = 0.6061) and overall survival (p = 0.4950). Via multivariate analysis, only serosal/adnexal invasion correlated with the risk of death (HR: 3.752, p = 0.038).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three minimally invasive approaches are safe and effective methods for managing endometrial cancer in the oldest old population. Chronological age, per se, should not be considered a contraindication for receiving minimally invasive surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 3","pages":"109568"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109568","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the safety and long-term effectiveness of minimally invasive approach in managing "oldest old" endometrial cancer patients.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort, multi-institutional study. Consecutive patients, treated between 2000 and 2020, with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer patients, aged ≥85 years. Surgery-related outcomes of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgery were compared. Survival was evaluated in patients with at least 3-year follow-up data.

Results: Charts of 82 endometrial cancer patients "oldest old" were retrieved. Intermediate-high and high-risk endometrial cancer patients accounted for 26 (31.7 %) and 17 (20.7 %), respectively. In total, 12 (15 %), 45 (55 %), and 25 (30 %) patients underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgery, respectively. Looking at surgery-related outcomes, robotic-assisted surgery correlated with a longer operative time (p < 0.001) and longer length of hospital stay (p = 0.002) in comparison to laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. Overall, seven (8.5 %) conversions from the planned approach occurred. The surgical approach did not influence disease-free survival (p = 0.6061) and overall survival (p = 0.4950). Via multivariate analysis, only serosal/adnexal invasion correlated with the risk of death (HR: 3.752, p = 0.038).

Conclusions: All three minimally invasive approaches are safe and effective methods for managing endometrial cancer in the oldest old population. Chronological age, per se, should not be considered a contraindication for receiving minimally invasive surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阴道、腹腔镜和机器人辅助手术治疗“高龄”子宫内膜癌的短期和长期结果。
目的:评价微创入路治疗“高龄高龄”子宫内膜癌患者的安全性和远期疗效。方法:这是一项回顾性队列、多机构研究。连续患者,2000 - 2020年间治疗,明显早期子宫内膜癌患者,年龄≥85岁。比较机器人辅助手术、腹腔镜手术和阴道手术的手术相关结果。在至少3年的随访数据中评估患者的生存。结果:检索到82例高龄子宫内膜癌患者的图表。中、高危子宫内膜癌患者分别为26例(31.7%)和17例(20.7%)。总共有12例(15%)、45例(55%)和25例(30%)患者分别接受了机器人辅助手术、腹腔镜手术和阴道手术。从手术相关的结果来看,机器人辅助手术与更长的手术时间相关(p)。结论:所有三种微创方法都是治疗高龄人群子宫内膜癌的安全有效的方法。实足年龄本身不应被视为接受微创手术的禁忌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Clinical implications of disappearing pancreatic cancer liver metastases: Lessons from colorectal liver metastases. Severe postoperative pancreatitis following treatment of peritoneal metastases. Risk factors and prognostic factors of pleural metastases in thymic epithelial tumors: A narrative review. Long-term outcomes of hepatopancreatoduodenectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A comparative study with conventional hepatectomy. Overcoming the technical challenge of venous resection with pancreatectomy: Which factors determine survival?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1