Minimally Invasive Surgery and Surgical Volume-Specific Survival and Perioperative Outcome: Unmet Need for Evidence in Gynecologic Malignancy

Shinya Matsuzaki; Maximilian Klar; Erica J Chang; Satoko Matsuzaki; Michihide Maeda; Renee H Zhang; Lynda D Roman; Koji Matsuo

doi:10.3390/jcm10204787

Minimally Invasive Surgery and Surgical Volume-Specific Survival and Perioperative Outcome: Unmet Need for Evidence in Gynecologic Malignancy

J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 19;10(20):4787. doi: 10.3390/jcm10204787.

Authors

Shinya Matsuzaki^{1

2

3}, Maximilian Klar⁴, Erica J Chang², Satoko Matsuzaki⁵, Michihide Maeda¹, Renee H Zhang⁶, Lynda D Roman^{2

7}, Koji Matsuo^{2

7}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Gynecology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka 541-8567, Japan.
² Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
³ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.
⁴ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, 79085 Freiburg, Germany.
⁵ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka 558-8558, Japan.
⁶ Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.
⁷ Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.

Abstract

This study examined the effect of hospital surgical volume on oncologic outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic malignancies. The objectives were to assess survival outcomes related to hospital surgical volume and to evaluate perioperative outcomes and examine non-gynecologic malignancies. Literature available from the PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed. All surgical procedures including gynecologic surgery with hospital surgical volume information were eligible for analysis. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine gastro-intestinal studies, seven genitourinary studies, four gynecological studies, two hepatobiliary studies, and one thoracic study were reviewed. Of those, 11 showed a positive volume-outcome association for perioperative outcomes. A study on MIS for ovarian cancer reported lower surgical morbidity in high-volume centers. Two studies were on endometrial cancer, of which one showed lower treatment costs in high-volume centers and the other showed no association with perioperative morbidity. Another study examined robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found no volume-outcome association for surgical morbidity. There were no gynecologic studies examining the association between hospital surgical volume and oncologic outcomes in MIS. The volume-outcome association for oncologic outcome in gynecologic MIS is understudied. This lack of evidence calls for further studies to address this knowledge gap.

Keywords: gynecologic malignancy; minimally invasive surgery; surgical volume; survival; systematic review; volume–outcome relationship.