Safety and Cost Considerations during the Introduction Period of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy.

Objective. To compare the safety, efficacy, and direct cost during the introduction of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy within an enhanced recovery pathway. Methods. A 1 : 1 single centre retrospective case control study of 36 propensity matched pairs of patients receiving open or laparoscopic surgery for early cervical cancer. Results. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the two cohorts. Open surgery cohort had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (189 versus 934 mL) and longer postoperative hospital stay (2.3 versus 4.1 days). Although no significant difference in the intraoperative or postoperative complications was found more urinary tract injuries were recorded in the laparoscopic cohort. Laparoscopic surgery had significantly longer duration (206 versus 159 minutes), lower lymph node harvest (12.6 versus 16.9), and slower bladder function recovery. The median direct hospital cost was £4850 for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and £4400 for open surgery. Conclusions. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy can be safely introduced in an enhanced recovery environment without significant increase in perioperative morbidity. The 10% higher direct hospital cost is not statistically significant and is expected to even out when indirect costs are included.

Radiotherapy in poor risk patients with stage I cancer of the endometrium: results of not giving external beam radiotherapy.

Poor prognosis (poorly differentiated and/or deep myometrial invasion) Stage I endometrial cancer can have a relapse rate as high as 50%. Traditionally, most clinical oncologists treat these patients with external beam radiotherapy after surgery but there is no evidence to show that this improves survival. The retrospective study looks at the results of not giving external beam radiotherapy in 25 consecutive patients and compares the results with a group of 13 consecutive patients who did have such treatment. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, degree of differentiation and degree of invasion. Survival was comparable in the two groups. There is no evidence of any obvious decrease in survival from withholding external beam radiotherapy, but this was not a prospective randomized controlled trial. This study illustrates that it is essential that the Medical Research Council ASTEC trial should be supported because this will determine the true place of external beam radiotherapy in such patients.