TY - JOUR
T1 - Different Surgical Approaches for Early-Stage Ovarian Cancer Staging. A Large Monocentric Experience
AU - Cianci, Stefano
AU - Capozzi, Vito Andrea
AU - Rosati, Andrea
AU - Rumolo, Valerio
AU - Corrado, Giacomo
AU - Uccella, Stefano
AU - Gueli Alletti, Salvatore
AU - Riccò, Matteo
AU - Fagotti, Anna
AU - Scambia, Giovanni
AU - Cosentino, Francesco
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Introduction: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Within patients enrolled during the study period, 455 met the inclusion criteria. No difference in intraoperative complications was recorded in the three groups (p = 0.709). Conversely, a significant difference occurred in postoperative complications (16.2 vs. 3.8 vs. 11.1%, in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively, p = 0.004). No difference was found in overall survival (OS) (32 vs. 31 vs. 25 months, p = 0.481) and disease-free survival (DFS) (26 vs. 29 vs. 24 months, p = 0.178) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. At univariate analysis FIGO stage I (p = 0.004) showed a lower recurrence rate compared to FIGO stage II. Conclusion: 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.
AB - Introduction: 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. Methods: 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). Results: Within patients enrolled during the study period, 455 met the inclusion criteria. No difference in intraoperative complications was recorded in the three groups (p = 0.709). Conversely, a significant difference occurred in postoperative complications (16.2 vs. 3.8 vs. 11.1%, in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively, p = 0.004). No difference was found in overall survival (OS) (32 vs. 31 vs. 25 months, p = 0.481) and disease-free survival (DFS) (26 vs. 29 vs. 24 months, p = 0.178) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. At univariate analysis FIGO stage I (p = 0.004) showed a lower recurrence rate compared to FIGO stage II. Conclusion: 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.
KW - early-stage
KW - laparoscopy
KW - laparotomy
KW - ovarian cancer (OC)
KW - robotic
KW - early-stage
KW - laparoscopy
KW - laparotomy
KW - ovarian cancer (OC)
KW - robotic
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/219664
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2022.880681
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2022.880681
M3 - Article
SN - 2296-858X
VL - 9
SP - 1
EP - 9
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
ER -