Skip to main content
main-content

30.05.2019 | Gynecologic Oncology | Ausgabe 9/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019

Impact of Radical Hysterectomy Versus Simple Hysterectomy on Survival of Patients with Stage 2 Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Zeitschrift:
Annals of Surgical Oncology > Ausgabe 9/2019
Autoren:
MD Ting Liu, MD Hua Tu, MD Yongxue Li, MD Zhimin Liu, MD Guochen Liu, MD Haifeng Gu
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1245/​s10434-019-07472-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Ting Liu, Hua Tu, and Yongxue Li have contributed equally to this work.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Background

The strategy of radical surgery for stage 2 endometrial cancer (EC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of radical hysterectomy (RH) versus simple hysterectomy (SH) on survival of patients with stage 2 EC.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing survival between RH and SH in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 2 EC patients by searching several databases to July 2018. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival and progression-free survival were pooled using Stata V.12.0.

Results

The study included 10 retrospective cohort studies enrolling 2866 patients. Patients who received RH did not show a significant survival benefit for either overall survival (pooled HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.72–1.16; P = 0.484) or progression-free survival (pooled HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.39–1.42; P = 0.378). The result remained consistent after it was balanced with possible impact from adjuvant radiotherapy (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.62–1.16; P = 0.300). In earlier studies that staged patients according to FIGO 1988, RH showed a 27% survival benefit (pooled HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.53–1.00; P = 0.050), whereas in newly published studies based on FIGO 2009 staging, it reversely showed increased risk of death (pooled HR 1.24; 95% CI 0.86–1.77; P = 0.245). However, no statistical significance was reached under either staging criterion.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, RH does not significantly improve survival in stage 2 EC. The choice of RH remains controversial and should be considered carefully in clinical practice. More qualified studies are needed to determine the best treatment strategy for stage 2 EC.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
10434_2019_7472_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 17 kb)
10434_2019_7472_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 15 kb)
10434_2019_7472_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)
10434_2019_7472_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Chirurgie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

  2. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Chirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise