Minimally Invasive Compared With Open Surgery in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

Data sources: A cohort study of all patients who underwent surgery for high-risk endometrial cancer between 1999 and 2016 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) and a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus of all published studies until December 2020.

Methods of study selection: The systematic review identified 2,332 patients (14 studies, all retrospective except a subanalysis of a randomized comparison) and the cohort study identified 542 additional patients. Articles were included if reporting original data on overall survival and disease-free survival among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer, defined as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, mixed histology, or uterine carcinosarcoma. Studies that did not report at least one of the main outcomes, those in which one surgical technique (robotic or laparoscopic surgery) was missing in the comparison analysis with open surgery, and case reports were excluded. Additional data were extracted from a retrospective cohort of patients from Mayo. A random-effect model was used for meta-analysis.

Tabulation, integration, and results: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO. Literature search and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers, as well as quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Meta-analysis showed that disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery were not statistically different from those of patients who underwent open abdominal surgery (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.05, I2 20%, P=.23; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.11, I2 31%, P=.12, respectively). Subgroup analysis by stage (early vs advanced) did not identify a difference between surgical approaches.

Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery and open surgery had similar disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42021275535.