Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Oncologic Safety of Laparoscopy in the Surgical Treatment of Type II Endometrial Cancer
  1. Giovanni Favero, MD, PhD,
  2. Cristina Anton, MD,
  3. Xin Le, MD,
  4. Alexandre Silva e Silva, MD,
  5. Nasuh Utku Dogan, MD,
  6. Tatiana Pfiffer, MD,
  7. Christhardt Köhler, MD, PhD,
  8. Edmund Chada Baracat, MD, PhD and
  9. Jesus Paula Carvalho, MD, PhD
  1. * Department of Gynecology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo-ICESP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil;
  2. Department of Advanced Gynecologic Surgery and Oncology, Asklepios Hospital Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg, Germany; and
  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Giovanni Favero, MD, PhD, Department of Gynecology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo-ICESP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. E-mail: gdifavero{at}


Background 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.

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, operative outcomes, and oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in patients with type II EC.

Methods 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.

Results 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).

Conclusions 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.

  • Type II endometrial cancer
  • Laparoscopic treatment
  • Oncologic safety

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest.