Cervical cancer represents a general health issue spread all over the globe, which prompts the surge of scientific survey toward the rise of survival and condition of life of these patients. American and European guidelines suggest the open surgery, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery are the main therapeutic approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical cancer. This is the first survey to analyze the long-term oncological outcome of an extensive series of subjects cared for with multimodality treatment, here comprising robotic surgery. This study intents to evaluate the long-term oncological result in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy (±chemotherapy) and robotic surgery compared with open surgery. Medical files of 56 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent a robotic hysterectomy and radiotherapy ± chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. The median age at diagnosis was 50.5 (range: 23–70). Eleven patients (19.6%) presented in an early stage (IB–IIA) and 80.4% advanced stage (IIB–IVA). Overall response rate after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was 96.2%. Pathologic complete response was obtained in 64% of patients. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 6–105 months), 8 patients (14.2%) presented local recurrence or distant metastases. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 92% at 2 years and 84% at 3 and 5 years. Overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 3, and 5 years for patients with robotic surgery were 91%, 78%, and 73%, median OS not reached. OS was lower in the arm of open surgery (2, 3, and 5 years 87%, 71%, and 61%, respectively; median OS was 72 months P = .054). The multivariate analysis regarding the outcome of patients revealed an advantage for complete versus partial response ( P < .002), for early versus advanced stages ( P = .014) and a 10% gained in DFS at 3 years for patients in whom chemoradiotherapy was administered (DFS at 3 years 75% vs 85%) in patients with advanced stages. Robotic surgery has a favorable oncological outcome when associated with multimodal therapy.
Background and Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of clinical prognostic factors and propose a prognostic score that aids the clinician’s decision in estimating the risk for patients in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: The study included 195 patients diagnosed with ovarian adenocarcinoma. The therapeutic strategy involved multidisciplinary decisions: surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (80%), neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (16.4%), and only chemotherapy in selected cases (3.6%). Results: After a median follow-up of 68 months, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 and 2 vs. 0 (hazard ratio—HR = 2.71, 95% confidence interval—CI, 1.96–3.73, p < 0.001 for PFS and HR = 3.19, 95%CI, 2.20–4.64, p < 0.001 for OS), menopausal vs. premenopausal status (HR = 2.02, 95%CI, 1.35–3,0 p < 0.001 and HR = 2.25, 95%CI = 1.41–3.59, p < 0.001), ascites (HR = 1.95, 95%CI 1.35–2.80, p = 0.03, HR = 2.31, 95%CI = 1.52–3.5, p < 0.007), residual disease (HR = 5.12, 95%CI 3.43–7.65, p < 0.0001 and HR = 4.07, 95%CI = 2.59–6.39, p < 0.0001), and thrombocytosis (HR = 2.48 95%CI = 1.72–3.58, p < 0.0001, HR = 3.33, 95%CI = 2.16–5.13, p < 0.0001) were associated with a poor prognosis. An original prognostic score including these characteristics was validated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (area under the curve—AUC = 0.799 for PFS and AUC = 0.726 for OS, p < 0.001). The median PFS for patients with none, one, two, three, or four (or more) prognostic factors was not reached, 70, 36, 20, and 12 months, respectively. The corresponding median overall survival (OS) was not reached, 108, 77, 60, and 34 months, respectively. Conclusions: Several negative prognostic factors were identified: ECOG performance status ≥ 1, the presence of ascites and residual disease after surgery, thrombocytosis, and menopausal status. These led to the development of an original prognostic score that can be helpful in clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.