Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparative Surgical Outcomes for Endometrial Cancer Patients 65 Years Old or Older Staged With Robotics or Laparotomy

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to assess the safety of robotic surgery for older women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer between October 2010 and December 2012 was conducted at the authors’ institution. This cohort was divided by age (≥65 vs <65 years) and surgical approach (laparotomy vs robotic surgery). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were compared using standard statistical analysis.

Results

Of 228 patients identified, 73 (32 %) were 65 years old or older, and 98 (43 %) had undergone robotic surgery. Among the robotic surgery patients, women 65 years old or older had a higher Charlson comorbidity score (7.6 vs 4.9; p < 0.01) and were more likely to undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy (73 vs 39 %; p < 0.01). The complication rates did not differ between the groups except for increased urinary retention in the older group (15 % vs 3 %; p = 0.04). Older patients had a longer hospital stay (2.2 vs 1.3 days; p < 0.01) and a similar rate of discharge home (100 vs 96 %; p = 0.09). For the patients 65 years old or older, robotic surgery was associated with less blood loss (131 vs 235 ml; p = 0.03), a lower rate of ileus (0 vs 15 %; p = 0.04), a lower perioperative surgical complication rate (4 vs 30 %; p = 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (2.2 vs 4.4 days; p < 0.01), and a similar rate of discharge home (96 vs 91 %; p = 0.45) compared with laparotomy.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery appears to be associated with less postoperative morbidity than laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in women 65 years old or older. The complication rates after robotic surgery were similar between the two age groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ries LAG, Young JL, Keel GE, Eisner MP, Lin YD, Horner M-J (eds). SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: U.S. SEER Program, 1988–2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics. National Cancer Institute, SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07-6215, Bethesda, MD, 2007.

  3. Bentrem DJ, Cohen ME, Hynes DM, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY. Identification of specific quality improvement opportunities for the elderly undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Arch Surg. 2009;144:1013–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Ryan TJ, Isom OW, Bennett E, et al. Predictors of readmission for complications of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2003;290:773–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, Mosca C, Healey NA, Kumbhani DJ, et al. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2005;242:326–41; discussion 41–3.

  6. Rabeneck L, Davila JA, Thompson M, El-Serag HB. Outcomes in elderly patients following surgery for colorectal cancer in the veterans affairs health care system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:1115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW, Sheppard BC. Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: a plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg. 2009;144:713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Polanczyk CA, Marcantonio E, Goldman L, Rohde LE, Orav J, Mangione CM, et al. Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:637–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wright JD, Lewin SN, Barrena Medel NI, Sun X, Burke WM, Deutsch I, et al. Morbidity and mortality of surgery for endometrial cancer in the oldest old. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:66 e1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cykert S, Dilworth-Anderson P, Monroe MH, Walker P, McGuire FR, Corbie-Smith G, et al. Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2368–76.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodwin JS, Samet JM, Hunt WC. Determinants of survival in older cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1031–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schonberg MA, Marcantonio ER, Li D, Silliman RA, Ngo L, McCarthy EP. Breast cancer among the oldest old: tumor characteristics, treatment choices, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2038–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bijen CB, Briet JM, de Bock GH, Arts HJ, Bergsma-Kadijk JA, Mourits MJ. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomized multi center study. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:23.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:695–700.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin F, Zhang QJ, Zheng FY, Zhao HQ, Zeng QQ, Zheng MH, et al. Laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for endometrial cancer–a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1315–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Palomba S, Falbo A, Mocciaro R, Russo T, Zullo F. Laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, Spirtos NM, Rotmensch J, Cella D. Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5337–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Serati M, Casarin J, Mariani A, et al. Laparoscopic staging in women older than 75 years with early-stage endometrial cancer: comparison with open surgical operation. Menopause. 2014;21:945–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu X, Lum D, Kiet TK, Fuh KC, Orr J Jr, Brooks RA, et al. Utilization of and charges for robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107:653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:604–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:368 e1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:360 e1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oncology FCoG. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125:97–8.

  26. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Keeney GL, Long HJ, Lesnick TG, Podratz KC. High-risk endometrial cancer subgroups: candidates for target-based adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:120–6. ubMed PMID: 15385120.

  27. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Informat. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bernardini MQ, Gien LT, Tipping H, Murphy J, Rosen BP. Surgical outcome of robotic surgery in morbidly obese patient with endometrial cancer compared to laparotomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obst Gynecol. 2009;114:16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Weber DM. Laparoscopic surgery: an excellent approach in elderly patients. Arch Surg. 2003;138:1083–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Siesto G, Uccella S, Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Zefiro F, Serati M, et al. Surgical and survival outcomes in older women with endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopy. Menopause. 2010;17:539–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Siesto G, Ornaghi S, Ieda N, Vitobello D. Robotic surgical staging for endometrial and cervical cancers in medically ill patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:593–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vaknin Z, Perri T, Lau S, Deland C, Drummond N, Rosberger Z, et al. Outcome and quality of life in a prospective cohort of the first 100 robotic surgeries for endometrial cancer, with focus on elderly patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1367–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Doo MD.

Additional information

Poster presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, March 2014, Tampa, FL, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doo, D.W., Guntupalli, S.R., Corr, B.R. et al. Comparative Surgical Outcomes for Endometrial Cancer Patients 65 Years Old or Older Staged With Robotics or Laparotomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 3687–3694 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4428-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4428-0

Keywords

Navigation