Impact on Prognosis of the Surgical Route, Laparoscopy or Laparotomy, for the Surgical Staging of Early Stage Ovarian Cancer-A Study from the FRANCOGYN Group.
early stage ovarian cancer
laparoscopic staging
minimally invasive surgery
overall survival
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2020
31 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
31
08
2020
revised:
26
10
2020
accepted:
28
10
2020
entrez:
4
11
2020
pubmed:
5
11
2020
medline:
5
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
according to the latest ESMO-ESGO recommendations, laparotomy is the standard surgical approach to treat and stage patients with presumed early stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). A few studies have investigated the efficacy and the safety of laparoscopy for the staging of early stage EOC, and this question is still in the center of debates. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits of the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have still to be specified. The aim of this multicenter and retrospective study is to assess the survival outcomes of laparoscopic staging in comparison with laparotomic staging for patients presenting with an early stage EOC. data of patients with early stage EOC (FIGO I-IIA) who underwent primary surgery between 2000 and 2018 were extracted from the FRANCOGYN database. OS and RFS of these two groups, constituted according to the surgical route, were compared using Log rank test. of the 144 patients included, 107 patients underwent laparotomy and 37 underwent laparoscopy for a staging purpose. The median follow-up was 36.0 months (18.0 to 58.0). For the laparoscopy and the laparotomy group, the median follow-up period was 24 (11.0 to 50.0) and 42.0 (24.0 to 66.0) months, respectively, ( there is no difference associated with the laparoscopic approach for the staging of early stage EOC on RFS and OS in comparison with laparotomy. MIS may be proposed as a safe and adequate alternative to laparotomy when performed by well-trained surgeons.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
according to the latest ESMO-ESGO recommendations, laparotomy is the standard surgical approach to treat and stage patients with presumed early stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). A few studies have investigated the efficacy and the safety of laparoscopy for the staging of early stage EOC, and this question is still in the center of debates. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits of the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have still to be specified. The aim of this multicenter and retrospective study is to assess the survival outcomes of laparoscopic staging in comparison with laparotomic staging for patients presenting with an early stage EOC.
METHODS
METHODS
data of patients with early stage EOC (FIGO I-IIA) who underwent primary surgery between 2000 and 2018 were extracted from the FRANCOGYN database. OS and RFS of these two groups, constituted according to the surgical route, were compared using Log rank test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
of the 144 patients included, 107 patients underwent laparotomy and 37 underwent laparoscopy for a staging purpose. The median follow-up was 36.0 months (18.0 to 58.0). For the laparoscopy and the laparotomy group, the median follow-up period was 24 (11.0 to 50.0) and 42.0 (24.0 to 66.0) months, respectively, (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
there is no difference associated with the laparoscopic approach for the staging of early stage EOC on RFS and OS in comparison with laparotomy. MIS may be proposed as a safe and adequate alternative to laparotomy when performed by well-trained surgeons.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33142772
pii: jcm9113528
doi: 10.3390/jcm9113528
pmc: PMC7693611
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ann Oncol. 2019 May 1;30(5):672-705
pubmed: 31046081
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;43(6):994-1002
pubmed: 27546015
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Jan;96(1):72-6
pubmed: 15589583
J Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Apr;25(2):111-7
pubmed: 24761214
Biometrics. 1983 Jun;39(2):499-503
pubmed: 6354290
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):431-7
pubmed: 18929404
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;57(1):7-12
pubmed: 29458907
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(3-4):117-22
pubmed: 22229064
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;200(1):83.e1-6
pubmed: 19019337
BMC Cancer. 2015 Nov 24;15:928
pubmed: 26596955
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Jul;15(7):2012-9
pubmed: 18437497
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jun;137(3):412-7
pubmed: 25868967
Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):1994-2004
pubmed: 27502723
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904
pubmed: 30380365
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 May;105(2):409-13
pubmed: 17275077
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1994 Sep;4(5):333-336
pubmed: 11578428
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun;48(6):369-378
pubmed: 30936027
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1614-9
pubmed: 15902166
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):769-74
pubmed: 26995493
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1905-1914
pubmed: 30379613
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019 Feb;47(2):168-179
pubmed: 30686727
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Jun;29(5):845-850
pubmed: 31155516
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(20):e3655
pubmed: 27196468
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Jun;201:94-100
pubmed: 27086268
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5331-6
pubmed: 19805679
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 13;10:CD005344
pubmed: 27737492
Bull Cancer. 2019 Oct;106(10):843-846
pubmed: 31445672
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May - Jun;24(4):552-562
pubmed: 28223182
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):1-5
pubmed: 24219974
Bull Cancer. 2000 Jan;87(1):76-85
pubmed: 10673635
BMC Cancer. 2015 Aug 26;15:597
pubmed: 26307038
Lancet. 2001 Jan 20;357(9251):176-82
pubmed: 11213094
Biometrics. 2010 Dec;66(4):1202-8
pubmed: 20337628