ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2025
Minimally Invasive Surgery in Endometrial Cancer: Superior for Low-Risk and Comparable for High-Risk Cases in a 20-Year Cohort Study.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: effect on inflammatory factors and quality of life.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Surgical approach selection and perioperative-pathological characteristics in endometrial cancer: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat endometrial cancer offers advantages over laparotomy, although concerns about its oncological safety for high-risk tumors and feasibility in patients with significant comorbidities remain. This study evaluates perioperative and long-term outcomes of MIS versus open surgery in a tertiary referral center cohort, using FIGO 2010 and 2023 classifications. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of perioperative outcomes, recurrence rates, and survival after endometrial cancer surgery (2000-2021) at an ESGO training center and tertiary referral center in Germany. 760 patients underwent hysterectomy, and adequate data for risk classification (without molecular diagnostics) was available for 330 of them. Results: More than one third of the patients were aged 70 years or older and approximately half of the patients were obese. A high proportion presented with comorbidities such as hypertension or diabetes. MIS demonstrated favorable perioperative results in both low-risk and high-risk patients. Survival analysis showed a superior outcome with MIS for low-risk (5-year RFS rate: 79.8% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.035; OS rate: 83.8% vs. 58.0%, p = 0.010) and FIGO 2023 stage I disease (OS: p = 0.014). The oncological safety of MIS was equivalent to that of open surgery for high-risk tumors (5-year RFS rate: 60.5% vs. 54.3%, p = 0.506; OS rate: 67.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.416) and FIGO 2023 stages II (RFS, p = 0.453; OS, p = 0.378) and III (RFS, p = 0.419; OS, p = 0.850). Conclusion: MIS was found to have superior outcomes for low-risk endometrial cancer and a comparable safety for high-risk patients, including those with older age or significant comorbidities. These findings support the use of MIS approaches as viable options across diverse risk groups, in line with FIGO 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.