Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Logo UNICATT
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Attività
  • Competenze

UNI-FIND
Logo UNICATT

|

UNI-FIND

unicatt.it
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Attività
  • Competenze
  1. Pubblicazioni

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

Articolo
Data di Pubblicazione:
2023
Citazione:
Bizzarri, N., Chiantera, V., Loverro, M., Sozzi, G., Perrone, E., Gueli Alletti, S., Costantini, B., Gallotta, V., Tortorella, L., Fagotti, A., Fanfani, F., Ercoli, A., Scambia, G., Vizzielli, G., Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenteration in gynecological malignancies: A propensity-matched survival analysis, <>, 2023; 33 (2): 190-197. [doi:10.1136/ijgc-2022-003954] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/305398]
Abstract:
Objective The 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. Methods A 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. Results After 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). Conclusion In 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.
Tipologia CRIS:
Articolo in rivista, Nota a sentenza
Keywords:
laparoscopes; laparotomy; neoplasm recurrence, local; postoperative care; surgical oncology
Elenco autori:
Bizzarri, Nicolo'; Chiantera, V.; Loverro, M.; Sozzi, G.; Perrone, E.; Gueli Alletti, Salvatore; Costantini, B.; Gallotta, Valerio; Tortorella, L.; Fagotti, Anna; Fanfani, Francesco; Ercoli, A.; Scambia, Giovanni; Vizzielli, Giuseppe
Link alla scheda completa:
https://publicatt.unicatt.it/handle/10807/305398
Pubblicato in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER
Journal
  • Aree Di Ricerca

Aree Di Ricerca

Settori (2)


LS7_2 - Medical technologies and tools (including genetic tools and biomarkers) for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of diseases - (2022)

Settore MEDS-21/A - Ginecologia e ostetricia
  • Utilizzo dei cookie

Realizzato con VIVO | Designed by Cineca | 26.5.0.0