Lymph node evaluation for endometrial hyperplasia: a nationwide analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy in the ambulatory setting.
Ambulatory
Endometrial hyperplasia
Hysterectomy
Lymph node evaluation
Minimally invasive
Same day surgery
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
26
06
2022
accepted:
17
04
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
9
5
2023
entrez:
8
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Given the possibility of occult endometrial cancer where nodal status confers important prognostic and therapeutic data, role of lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia is currently under active investigation. The objective of the current study was to examine the characteristics related to lymph node evaluation at the time of minimally invasive hysterectomy when performed for endometrial hyperplasia in an ambulatory surgery setting. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample was retrospectively queried to examine 49,698 patients with endometrial hyperplasia who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy from 1/2016 to 12/2019. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was fitted to assess the characteristics related to lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy and a classification tree model with recursive partitioning analysis was constructed to examine the utilization pattern of lymph node evaluation. Lymph node evaluation was performed in 2847 (5.7%) patients. In a multivariable analysis, (i) patient factors with older age, obesity, high census-level household income, and large fringe metropolitan, (ii) surgical factors with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and recent year surgery, (iii) hospital parameters with large bed capacity, urban setting, and Western U.S. region, and (iv) histology factor with presence of atypia were independently associated with increased utilization of lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy (all, P < 0.05). Among those independent factors, presence of atypia exhibited the largest association for lymph node evaluation (adjusted odds ratio 3.75, 95% confidence interval 3.39-4.16). There were 20 unique patterns of lymph node evaluation based on histology, hysterectomy type, patient age, year of surgery, and hospital bed capacity, ranging from 0 to 20.3% (absolute rate difference, 20.3%). Lymph node evaluation at the time of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia in the ambulatory surgery setting appears to be evolving with large variability based on histology type, hysterectomy modality, patient factors, and hospital parameters, warranting a consideration of developing clinical practice guidelines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Given the possibility of occult endometrial cancer where nodal status confers important prognostic and therapeutic data, role of lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia is currently under active investigation. The objective of the current study was to examine the characteristics related to lymph node evaluation at the time of minimally invasive hysterectomy when performed for endometrial hyperplasia in an ambulatory surgery setting.
METHODS
The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample was retrospectively queried to examine 49,698 patients with endometrial hyperplasia who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy from 1/2016 to 12/2019. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was fitted to assess the characteristics related to lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy and a classification tree model with recursive partitioning analysis was constructed to examine the utilization pattern of lymph node evaluation.
RESULTS
Lymph node evaluation was performed in 2847 (5.7%) patients. In a multivariable analysis, (i) patient factors with older age, obesity, high census-level household income, and large fringe metropolitan, (ii) surgical factors with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and recent year surgery, (iii) hospital parameters with large bed capacity, urban setting, and Western U.S. region, and (iv) histology factor with presence of atypia were independently associated with increased utilization of lymph node evaluation at hysterectomy (all, P < 0.05). Among those independent factors, presence of atypia exhibited the largest association for lymph node evaluation (adjusted odds ratio 3.75, 95% confidence interval 3.39-4.16). There were 20 unique patterns of lymph node evaluation based on histology, hysterectomy type, patient age, year of surgery, and hospital bed capacity, ranging from 0 to 20.3% (absolute rate difference, 20.3%).
CONCLUSION
Lymph node evaluation at the time of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia in the ambulatory surgery setting appears to be evolving with large variability based on histology type, hysterectomy modality, patient factors, and hospital parameters, warranting a consideration of developing clinical practice guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37157034
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10081-2
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-10081-2
pmc: PMC10338549
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6163-6171Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Armstrong AJ, Hurd WW, Elguero S, Barker NM, Zanotti KM (2012) Diagnosis and management of endometrial hyperplasia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(5):562–571
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.05.009
pubmed: 22863972
Trimble CL, Method M, Leitao M et al (2012) Management of endometrial precancers. Obstet Gynecol 120(5):1160–1175
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826bb121
pubmed: 23090535
pmcid: 3800154
Reed SD, Newton KM, Clinton WL et al (2009) Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(6):678
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.032
pmcid: 2692753
Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ (1985) The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A long-term study of “untreated” hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer 56(2):403–412
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850715)56:2<403::AID-CNCR2820560233>3.0.CO;2-X
pubmed: 4005805
Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R et al (2006) Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 106(4):812–819
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21650
pubmed: 16400639
Costales AB, Schmeler KM, Broaddus R et al (2014) Clinically significant endometrial cancer risk following a diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 135(3):451–454
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.10.008
pubmed: 25316176
pmcid: 4268403
Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E (2016) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 387(10023):1094–1108
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0
pubmed: 26354523
Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL et al (2006) Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 106(4):804–811
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21649
pubmed: 16400640
Vetter MH, Smith B, Benedict J et al (2020) Preoperative predictors of endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or complex atypical hyperplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 222(1):60
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.002
Dioun S, Chen L, Melamed A et al (2021) Uptake and outcomes of sentinel lymph node mapping in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol 137(5):924–934
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004352
pubmed: 33831939
Matsuo K, Violette CJ, Mandelbaum RS, Tavakoli A, Klar M, Wright JD (2022) Increasing utilization of surgical nodal evaluation at hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004796
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004796
pubmed: 35675614
Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J et al (2013) Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 122(2 Pt 1):233–241
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf
pubmed: 23969789
pmcid: 3913114
Wright JD, Huang Y, Li AH, Melamed A, Hershman DL (2022) Nationwide estimates of annual inpatient and outpatient hysterectomies performed in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 139(3):446–448
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004679
pubmed: 35115477
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Overview of the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS). https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nassoverview.jsp . Accessed 21 June 2022
Matsuo K, Violette CJ, Mandelbaum RS et al (2022) Substantial variability in ovarian conservation at hysterectomy for endometrial hyperplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 227:255
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.032
Wright JD, Cham S, Chen L et al (2017) Utilization of sentinel lymph node biopsy for uterine cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216(6):594
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.021
pmcid: 5449248
Polan RM, Rossi EC, Barber EL (2019) Extent of lymphadenectomy and postoperative major complications among women with endometrial cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 220(3):263
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1102
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical Classifications Software for Services and Procedures. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs_svcsproc/ccssvcproc.jsp . Accessed 21 June 2022
Matsuo K, Ramzan AA, Gualtieri MR et al (2015) Prediction of concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 139(2):261–267
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.07.108
pubmed: 26238457
pmcid: 7521604
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383
doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
pubmed: 3558716
Ghaferi AA, Schwartz TA, Pawlik TM (2021) STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies. JAMA Surg 156(6):577–578
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0528
pubmed: 33825815
Shalowitz DI, Goodwin A, Schoenbachler N (2019) Does surgical treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia require referral to a gynecologic oncologist? Am J Obstet Gynecol 220(5):460–464
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.010
pubmed: 30527944
Sullivan MW, Philp L, Kanbergs AN et al (2021) Lymph node assessment at the time of hysterectomy has limited clinical utility for patients with pre-cancerous endometrial lesions. Gynecol Oncol 162(3):613–618
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.07.004
pubmed: 34247769
Touhami O, Gregoire J, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Plante M (2018) The utility of sentinel lymph node mapping in the management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol 148(3):485–490
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.12.026
pubmed: 29290489
Mueller JJ, Rios-Doria E, Park KJ, Broach VA, Alektiar KM, Jewell EL, Zivanovic O, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Leitao MM Jr, Gardner GJ (2023) Sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial hyperplasia: a practice to preserve or abandon? Gynecol Oncol 168:1–7
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.10.017
pubmed: 36334496
Matanes E, Amajoud Z, Kogan L, Mitric C, Ismail S, Raban O, Knigin D, Levin G, Bahoric B, Ferenczy A, Pelmus M, Lecavalier-Barsoum M, Lau S, Salvador S, Gotlieb WH (2023) Is sentinel lymph node assessment useful in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia? Gynecol Oncol 168:107–113
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.10.023
pubmed: 36423445