June-Kuk Choi

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients: a matched-case comparative study.

Objective This study aimed to compare initial surgical outcomes and complication rates of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Methods Patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IIA) who underwent RRH (n = 23) at Samsung Medical Center from January 2008 to May 2013 were compared with matched patients who underwent LRH (n = 69) during the same period. The 2 surgical groups were matched 3:1 for variables of age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histological subtype, tumor size, and node positivity. All patient information and surgical and postoperative follow-up data were retrospectively collected. Results Operating time was significantly longer (317 vs 236 minutes; P < 0.001) in the RRH group compared with the LRH group but mean estimated blood loss was significantly reduced in the RRH group (200 vs 350 mL; P = 0.036). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.3% for RRH vs 1.45% for LRH; P = 0.439). Recurrences were 2 (8.7%) in the RRH and 7 (10.1%) in the LRH group. The overall 3-year recurrence-free survival was 91.3% in RRH group and 89.9% in the LRH group (P = 0.778). Conclusions Although operating time was longer in the RRH cases because of lesser experience on robotic platform, we showed that surgical outcomes and complication rate of RRH were comparable to those of LRH. In addition, surgical skills for LRH easily and safely translated to RRH in case of experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Bone metastasis in primary endometrial carcinoma: features, outcomes, and predictors.

Objectives This study aimed to describe the clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes and to assess the predictors associated with prognosis in endometrial carcinoma that developed bone metastasis. Methods A retrospective review of medical records was performed to identify the patients with endometrial carcinoma who developed bone metastasis between October 1994 and May 2012. Results Of the 1185 patients with endometrial carcinoma, 22 (1.8%) were identified with bone metastasis, and 21 patients were analyzed in the study. Seventeen (80.9%) patients had advanced-stage disease (2009 International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians stages III-IV). Four (19.0%) patients had a bone lesion at the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. The median time of recurrence to the bone in 17 patients was 9 months (range, 2–43 months). The median overall survival (OS) and survival after bone metastasis of the entire cohort were 33 months (range, 9–57 months) and 15 months (range, 12–17 months), respectively. The patients with bone metastasis at recurrence had significantly longer OS than those patients with bone metastasis at diagnosis of endometrial cancer (36 vs 13 months; P = 0.042). Metastasis to extrapelvic bone was significantly associated with longer OS (46 vs 19 months; P = 0.001) and longer survival after bone metastasis (25 vs 12 months; P = 0.002). Isolated bone recurrence without extraosseous metastases and extrapelvic bone metastasis revealed independent predictors for survival after bone metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.67; P = 0.019 and hazard ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.53; P = 0.01). Conclusions In endometrial carcinoma that develops bone metastasis, isolated bone recurrence and extrapelvic bone metastasis are significant predictors of prolonged survival after the diagnosis of bone metastasis. Further researches on the optimal treatment modality and factors that have the clinical implications are warranted.