Different Surgical Approaches for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer Staging. A Large Monocentric Experience.
early-stage
laparoscopy
laparotomy
ovarian cancer (OC)
robotic
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
02
2022
accepted:
28
03
2022
entrez:
13
5
2022
pubmed:
14
5
2022
medline:
14
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ovarian cancer is the third most frequent gynecological cancer. In early stage ovarian cancer (ESOC) comprehensive surgical staging is recommended. Surgical staging is traditionally approached by laparotomy, although minimally invasive surgery can be a valid alternative in selected patients. This study aims to analyze the surgical and oncological outcomes of three different surgical approaches in a large series of patients. We retrospectively included all histologically proven ESOC cases treated between January 2014 and December 2017. ESOC was defined as stage IA to IIB according to the 2018 FIGO staging system. Subjects were divided into groups 1, 2, and 3, based on the surgical approach (open abdominal, laparoscopic, or robotic, respectively). Within patients enrolled during the study period, 455 met the inclusion criteria. No difference in intraoperative complications was recorded in the three groups ( No significant difference was found in OS and DFS among the three groups (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). The minimally invasive approach showed lower rate of complications than the laparotomic approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35547212
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.880681
pmc: PMC9081786
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
880681Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Cianci, Capozzi, Rosati, Rumolo, Corrado, Uccella, Gueli Alletti, Riccò, Fagotti, Scambia and Cosentino.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1614-9
pubmed: 15902166
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):284-296
pubmed: 29809280
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(20):e3655
pubmed: 27196468
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jul;138(1):62-9
pubmed: 25976399
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 13;10:CD005344
pubmed: 27737492
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Apr;121(1):100-5
pubmed: 21194736
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Jan;29(1):5-9
pubmed: 30640676
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Nov;45:74-82
pubmed: 28602522
Minerva Med. 2019 Aug;110(4):279-291
pubmed: 31081307
World J Surg. 2019 Oct;43(10):2401-2419
pubmed: 31187247
Surg Endosc. 2018 May;32(5):2525-2532
pubmed: 29101556
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2018 Jul-Sep;7(3):93-103
pubmed: 30254949
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Nov;131(2):341-6
pubmed: 23938372
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;54(1):29-38
pubmed: 25675916
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jul-Aug;23(5):769-74
pubmed: 26995493
World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep 13;17(1):162
pubmed: 31519176
Minerva Med. 2019 Aug;110(4):320-329
pubmed: 31081305
Minerva Med. 2019 Aug;110(4):341-357
pubmed: 31124636
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jul;62:132-7
pubmed: 27189322
J Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep;22(3):196-202
pubmed: 21998763
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Jul - Aug;25(5):816-822
pubmed: 29269126
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
BMC Cancer. 2015 Aug 26;15:597
pubmed: 26307038
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):250-62
pubmed: 19321390
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Mar-Apr;23(3):309-16
pubmed: 26538410
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:59-78
pubmed: 30306591
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593