Introduction A recent randomized clinical trial showed that minimally invasive surgery led to poorer survival compared with open surgery in early stage cervical cancer. We determined the trends in adoption of minimally invasive surgery and 5-year overall survival outcomes after open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic-assisted hysterectomy for stage II uterine cancer with cervical stromal involvement.
Methods Data for patients with stage II uterine cancer were acquired from the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2015. χ2 testing, Kaplan–Meier methods, and Cox models were used for statistical analyses.
Results Of 2949 patients, 44.3% underwent open hysterectomy, 13.9% underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy, and 41.8% underwent robotic hysterectomy. The proportion of robotic cases increased from 26.8% in 2010 to 48.3% in 2015 (annual percent change 10.1%), with a decrease in open hysterectomy from 63.3% to 34.3% (annual percent change –12.5%). The overall 5-year survival was 77.6% in robotic, 76.8% in laparoscopic, and 72.5% in open hysterectomy (p=0.045); however, after adjusting for known prognostic factors, robotic (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21; p=0.97) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; p=0.54) did not portend for improved survival compared with open hysterectomy. Black women (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.02; p<0.001) and individuals with co-morbidities (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.75, p<0.001) had worse adjusted survival and the highest rates of open hysterectomy.
Conclusion The use of minimally invasive surgery for stage II uterine cancer has increased over time, with comparable adjusted 5-year survival after robotic or laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open hysterectomy. Black women and those with co-morbidities had lowest rates of minimally invasive surgery and the poorest adjusted survival.
- uterine cancer
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MKA: methodology; writing original draft; writing review and editing; visualization. JKC: conceptualization; writing review and editing; visualization; supervision; project administration; funding acquisition. SC: conceptualization; writing review and editing. KD: writing review and editing. CT: writing review and editing. DSK: conceptualization; writing review and editing. AKM: methodology; writing review and editing. C-IL: methodology; software; formal analysis; investigation; resources; writing review and editing.
Funding We would like to acknowledge The Fisher Family Fund and Denise Cobb Hale for their generous administrative support.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. The data for this study was obtained with permission from the National Cancer Database.
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.