ObjectiveThe primary endpoint of this study was to compare the disease-free survival of patients undergoing open versus minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. The secondary endpoints were cancer-specific survival and peri-operative morbidity. MethodsA multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients undergoing curative and palliative anterior or total pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancer by a minimally invasive approach and an open approach between June 2010 and May 2021 were included. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. A 1:2 propensity match analysis between patients undergoing minimally invasive and open pelvic exenteration was performed to equalized baseline characteristics. ResultsAfter propensity match analysis a total of 117 patients were included, 78 (66.7%) and 39 (33.3%) in the open and minimally invasive group, respectively. No significant difference in intra-operative (23.4% vs 10.3%, p=0.13) and major post-operative complications (24.4% vs 17.9%, p=0.49) was evident between the open and minimally invasive approach. Patients undergoing open pelvic exenteration received higher rates of intra-operative transfusions (41.0% vs 17.9%, p=0.013). Median disease-free survival was 17.0 months for both the open and minimally invasive groups (p=0.63). Median cancer-specific survival was 30.0 months and 26.0 months in the open and minimally invasive groups, respectively (p=0.80). Positivity of surgical margins at final histology was the only significant factor influencing the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.31) (p=0.004), while tumor diameter >= 50 mm at the time of pelvic exenteration was the only significant factor influencing the risk of death (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) (p=0.025). ConclusionIn this retrospective study no survival difference was evident when minimally invasive pelvic exenteration was compared with open pelvic exenteration in patients with gynecological cancer. There was no difference in peri-operative complications, but a higher intra-operative transfusion rate was seen in the open group.

Bizzarri, N., Chiantera, V., Loverro, M., Sozzi, G., Perrone, E., Gueli Alletti, S., et al. (2023). Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: a propensity-matched survival analysis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 33(2), 190-197 [10.1136/ijgc-2022-003954].

Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: a propensity-matched survival analysis

Chiantera, Vito;Gueli Alletti, Salvatore;
2023-02-06

Abstract

ObjectiveThe primary endpoint of this study was to compare the disease-free survival of patients undergoing open versus minimally invasive pelvic exenteration. The secondary endpoints were cancer-specific survival and peri-operative morbidity. MethodsA multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients undergoing curative and palliative anterior or total pelvic exenteration for gynecological cancer by a minimally invasive approach and an open approach between June 2010 and May 2021 were included. Patients with distant metastases were excluded. A 1:2 propensity match analysis between patients undergoing minimally invasive and open pelvic exenteration was performed to equalized baseline characteristics. ResultsAfter propensity match analysis a total of 117 patients were included, 78 (66.7%) and 39 (33.3%) in the open and minimally invasive group, respectively. No significant difference in intra-operative (23.4% vs 10.3%, p=0.13) and major post-operative complications (24.4% vs 17.9%, p=0.49) was evident between the open and minimally invasive approach. Patients undergoing open pelvic exenteration received higher rates of intra-operative transfusions (41.0% vs 17.9%, p=0.013). Median disease-free survival was 17.0 months for both the open and minimally invasive groups (p=0.63). Median cancer-specific survival was 30.0 months and 26.0 months in the open and minimally invasive groups, respectively (p=0.80). Positivity of surgical margins at final histology was the only significant factor influencing the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.31) (p=0.004), while tumor diameter >= 50 mm at the time of pelvic exenteration was the only significant factor influencing the risk of death (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) (p=0.025). ConclusionIn this retrospective study no survival difference was evident when minimally invasive pelvic exenteration was compared with open pelvic exenteration in patients with gynecological cancer. There was no difference in peri-operative complications, but a higher intra-operative transfusion rate was seen in the open group.
6-feb-2023
Bizzarri, N., Chiantera, V., Loverro, M., Sozzi, G., Perrone, E., Gueli Alletti, S., et al. (2023). Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: a propensity-matched survival analysis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 33(2), 190-197 [10.1136/ijgc-2022-003954].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
190.full.pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 774.05 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
774.05 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/620667
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact