TY - JOUR
T1 - Role of minimally invasive surgery versus open approach in patients with early-stage uterine carcinosarcomas
T2 - a retrospective multicentric study
AU - Corrado, Giacomo
AU - Ciccarone, Francesca
AU - Cosentino, Francesco
AU - Legge, Francesco
AU - Rosati, Andrea
AU - Arcieri, Martina
AU - Turco, Luigi Carlo
AU - Certelli, Camilla
AU - Federico, Alex
AU - Vizza, Enrico
AU - Fanfani, Francesco
AU - Scambia, Giovanni
AU - Ferrandina, Gabriella
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare surgical and survival outcome in only patients with early-stage UCSs managed by laparotomic surgery (LPT) versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS).METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected in four Italian different institutions. Inclusion criteria were UCS diagnosis confirmed by the definitive histological examination, and stage I or II according to the FIGO staging system.RESULTS: Between August 2000 and March 2019, the data relative to 170 patients bearing UCSs were collected: of these, 95 were defined as early-stage disease (stage I-II) based on the histological report at the primary surgery, and thus were included in this study. Forty-four patients were managed by LPT, and 51 patients were managed by MIS. The operative time was lower in the MIS group versus the LPT group (p value 0.021); the median estimated blood loss was less in the MIS group compared to the median of LPT group (p value < 0.0001). The length of hospital stay days was shorter in the MIS patients (p value < 0.0001). Overall, there were eight (8.4%) post-operative complications; of these, seven were recorded in the LPT group versus one in the MIS group (p value 0.023). There was no difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.CONCLUSION: There was no difference of oncologic outcome between the two approaches, in face of a more favourable peri-operative and post-operative profile in the MIS group.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare surgical and survival outcome in only patients with early-stage UCSs managed by laparotomic surgery (LPT) versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS).METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected in four Italian different institutions. Inclusion criteria were UCS diagnosis confirmed by the definitive histological examination, and stage I or II according to the FIGO staging system.RESULTS: Between August 2000 and March 2019, the data relative to 170 patients bearing UCSs were collected: of these, 95 were defined as early-stage disease (stage I-II) based on the histological report at the primary surgery, and thus were included in this study. Forty-four patients were managed by LPT, and 51 patients were managed by MIS. The operative time was lower in the MIS group versus the LPT group (p value 0.021); the median estimated blood loss was less in the MIS group compared to the median of LPT group (p value < 0.0001). The length of hospital stay days was shorter in the MIS patients (p value < 0.0001). Overall, there were eight (8.4%) post-operative complications; of these, seven were recorded in the LPT group versus one in the MIS group (p value 0.023). There was no difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.CONCLUSION: There was no difference of oncologic outcome between the two approaches, in face of a more favourable peri-operative and post-operative profile in the MIS group.
U2 - 10.1007/s00432-020-03372-x
DO - 10.1007/s00432-020-03372-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 32880752
VL - 147
SP - 845
EP - 852
JO - Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
SN - 0171-5216
IS - 3
ER -