Ítem
Acceso Abierto

Resultados oncológicos de la histerectomía radical laparoscópica versus por laparotomía en pacientes con cáncer cervical temprano: una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación
dc.contributorTrujillo, Lina María
dc.contributor.advisorPosso Valencia, Hector
dc.contributor.advisorPareja, René
dc.creatorRodríguez, Juliana
dc.creator.degreeMagíster en epidemiologíaspa
dc.creator.degreetypeFull timespa
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-23T23:21:08Z
dc.date.available2020-11-23T23:21:08Z
dc.date.created2020-11-16
dc.descriptionIntroducción: El cáncer de cuello uterino es la cuarta causa de muerte por neoplasias ginecológicas a nivel mundial. El manejo de los estadios tempranos es quirúrgico, mediante abordajes laparoscópico o por laparotomía. La evidencia reciente ha mostrado peores resultados oncológicos en términos de recurrencia y muerte cuando la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se usa en este escenario clínico. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 4 años en pacientes que se habían sometido a histerectomía radical y linfadenectomía pélvica, por laparoscopia o laparotomía. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico de pacientes diagnosticadas con cáncer de cuello uterino entre el 1 de enero de 2006 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017, en siete centros de referencia para el manejo de cáncer de 6 países. Se incluyeron pacientes con estadio IA1 con invasión linfovascular, IA2 e IB1 (clasificación FIGO 2009) y con histologías escamoso, adenocarcinoma y adenoscamoso. En el análisis principal se utilizó la probabilidad inversa de ponderación del tratamiento (IPTW) para construir una cohorte ponderada de sujetos que diferían con respecto al abordaje quirúrgico pero que, por lo demás, eran similares en otras características medidas. Se estimó la razón de riesgo (HR) para la recurrencia y mortalidad por cualquier causa después de la histerectomía radical laparoscópica, en relación con la laparotomía, mediante modelos de riesgo proporcional ponderado de Cox. Resultados: Un total de 1379 pacientes se incluyeron en el análisis final, con 681 pacientes (49.4%) operados por laparoscopia y 698 pacientes (50.6%) operados por laparotomía. La mediana de edad fue 46 años (22-88). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 52.1 meses (0.8-201.2) para el grupo de laparoscopia, y de 52.6 meses (0.4-166.6) para el grupo de laparotomía. Las mujeres que se sometieron a histerectomía radical laparoscópica tuvieron una supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 4 años menor en comparación con el grupo de laparotomía (cociente de riesgo [HR] 1.64; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 1.09-2.46; p = 0.02). Después de ajustar por el tratamiento adyuvante, la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (HR 1.7; IC 95% 1.13-2.56; p = 0.01) y la supervivencia global a 4 años (HR 2.14; IC 95% 1.05-4.37; p = 0.03), también fueron más bajas en el grupo de laparoscopia. Conclusión: En este estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo, el abordaje laparoscópico para el cáncer cervical en etapa temprana, se asoció con un mayor riesgo de recurrencia, y también un mayor riesgo de muerte después del ajuste por el tratamiento adyuvante, en comparación con la laparotomía.spa
dc.description.abstractBackground: Cervical cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from gynecological malignancies worldwide. Management for the early stages is surgical, using laparoscopic approaches or laparotomy. Recent evidence has shown worse oncological outcomes in terms of recurrence and death when minimally invasive surgery is used in this clinical setting. The objective of this study was to compare 4-year disease-free survival in patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy. Materials and methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2 and IB1(FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from 6 countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous histologies. In the main patient-level analysis we used inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women who differed only with respect to surgical approach. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Results: A total of 1379 patients were included in the final analysis, with 681 (49.4%) operated by laparoscopy, and 698 (50.6%) by laparotomy. Median age was 46 (22-88) years. Median follow-up was 52.1(0.8-201.2) months for laparoscopy, and 52.6 (0.4-166.6) for laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had inferior 4-year disease-free survival compared with laparotomy group (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.09-2.46; p= 0.02). After adjustment for adjuvant treatment, the 4-year disease-free survival (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; p= 0.01) and overall survival (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05-4.37; p= 0.03) were also lower in the laparoscopy group. Conclusions: In this retrospective multicenter study, the laparoscopic approach for early stage cervical cancer, was associated with a higher risk of recurrence and also a higher risk of death after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, compared to laparotomyspa
dc.description.sponsorshipInstituto Nacional de Cancerología. Bogotá, Colombiaspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_30634
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/30634
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.publisher.departmentEscuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Saludspa
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Epidemiologíaspa
dc.rightsAtribución-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombiaspa
dc.rightsAtribución-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombiaspa
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.rights.licenciaEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos.spa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/co/
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGLOBOCAN 2018. Cervix uterino. [Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/23-Cervix-uteri-fact-sheet.pdf.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationArbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(2):e191-e203.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNCCN. Guidelines Version 1.2020 Cervical cancer. [Available from: Available: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRamirez PT, Slomovitz BM, Soliman PT, Coleman RL, Levenback C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102(2):252-5.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRamirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895-904.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMelamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1905-14.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCusimano MC, Baxter NN, Gien LT, Moineddin R, Liu N, Dossa F, et al. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(6):619.e1-.e24.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChen B, Ji M, Li P, Liu P, Zou W, Zhao Z, et al. Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):429-36.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAlfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, Staf C, Rådestad AF, Reynisson P, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;116:169-77.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKim JH, Kim K, Park SJ, Lee JY, Lim MC, Kim JW. Comparative Effectiveness of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer in the Postdissemination Era. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(2):788-96.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, Kim YI, Lee M, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(1):3-12.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDoo DW, Kirkland CT, Griswold LH, McGwin G, Huh WK, Leath CA, et al. Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(2):242-7.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChen X, Zhao N, Ye P, Chen J, Nan X, Zhao H, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(5):564-71.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPedone Anchora L, Turco LC, Bizzarri N, Capozzi VA, Lombisani A, Chiantera V, et al. How to Select Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Patients Still Suitable for Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: a Propensity-Matched Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(6):1947-55.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKanno K, Andou M, Yanai S, Toeda M, Nimura R, Ichikawa F, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A retrospective, single-institutional study in the wake of the LACC trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(12):2425-34.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrandt B, Sioulas V, Basaran D, Kuhn T, LaVigne K, Gardner GJ, et al. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(3):591-7.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMatanes E, Abitbol J, Kessous R, Kogan L, Octeau D, Lau S, et al. Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(4):450-8.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLim TYK, Lin KKM, Wong WL, Aggarwal IM, Yam PKL. Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer in Singapore. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2019;8(2):53-8.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHu TWY, Ming X, Yan HZ, Li ZY. Adverse effect of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy depends on tumor size in patients with cervical cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:8249-55.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYuan Z, Cao D, Yang J, Yu M, Shen K, Zhang Y, et al. Laparoscopic vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1107.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPaik ES, Lim MC, Kim MH, Kim YH, Song ES, Seong SJ, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: Ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 1028). Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(3):547-53.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKim SI, Lee M, Lee S, Suh DH, Kim HS, Kim K, et al. Impact of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on survival outcome in patients with FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: A matching study of two institutional hospitals in Korea. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;155(1):75-82.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K, Bixel KL, Matsuo K, Vetter MH, et al. Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1030-40.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Krause KJ, Tergas AI, Wright JD, et al. Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTantitamit T, Huang KG, Lee CL. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(4):481-8.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVergote I, Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Magtibay PM, Butler K, Gil-Moreno A, et al. The LACC Trial and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cervical Cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(2):462-3.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLeitao MM. The LACC Trial: Has Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Been Dealt a Knockout Punch? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(7):1248-50.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):903-11.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWallin E, Flöter Rådestad A, Falconer H. Introduction of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: impact on complications, costs and oncologic outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(5):536-42.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Serati M, Casarin J, Pinelli C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):857-62.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDitto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, Gasparri ML, Di Donato V, Zanaboni F, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):34-9.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationShah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D, Paley P. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e82.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPark JY, Nam JH. How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial? J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e74.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPark JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Outcomes after radical hysterectomy according to tumor size divided by 2-cm interval in patients with early cervical cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(1):59-67.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGauthier T, Lacorre A, Sallee C, Tardieu A, Guyon F, Margueritte F, et al. [Impact of the LACC study. A SFOG survey]. Bull Cancer. 2020;107(5):551-5.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKesic V, Poljak M, Rogovskaya S. Cervical cancer burden and prevention activities in Europe. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1423-33.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMurillo R, Herrero R, Sierra MS, Forman D. Cervical cancer in Central and South America: Burden of disease and status of disease control. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;44 Suppl 1:S121-S30spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPardo C, Cendales R. Cancer incidence estimates and mortality for the top five cancer in Colombia, 2007-2011. Colomb Med (Cali). 2018;49(1):16-22.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMarth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl_4):iv72-iv83.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationQuerleu D, Cibula D, Concin N, Fagotti A, Ferrero A, Fotopoulou C, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) statement. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(1):15.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCommittee FGO. FIGO statement on minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(3):264.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationESMO Guidelines Committee. eUpdate - Cervical Cancer Treatment Recommendations, 2020. [Available from: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/gynaecological-cancers/cervical-cancer/eupdate-cervical-cancer-treatment-recommendations.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTaylor SE, McBee WC, Richard SD, Edwards RP. Radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. JSLS. 2011;15(2):213-7.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHe J, Hao M, Liu P, Liu Z, Lang J, Bin X, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHu TWY, Huang Y, Li N, Nie D, Li Z. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(8):1143-50.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, Martin-Calvo N, Arévalo-Serrano J, Căpîlna ME, et al. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFalconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, Dahm-Kähler P, Ottander U, Lundin ES, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1072-6.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChao X, Li L, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, et al. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e029055.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAustin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-79.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41-55spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRosenbaum P, Rubin D. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984;79:516e24spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRosenbaum P. Model-based direct adjustment. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82:387–94.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLunt M. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(2):226-35.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMoulis G, Lapeyre-Mestre M. [Propensity score: Interests, use and limitations. A practical guide for clinicians]. Rev Med Interne. 2018;39(10):805-12.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWilliamson E, Morley R, Lucas A, Carpenter J. Propensity scores: from naive enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21(3):273-93.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAli MS, Groenwold RH, Belitser SV, Pestman WR, Hoes AW, Roes KC, et al. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):112-21.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPatorno E, Glynn RJ, Hernández-Díaz S, Liu J, Schneeweiss S. Studies with many covariates and few outcomes: selecting covariates and implementing propensity-score-based confounding adjustments. Epidemiology. 2014;25(2):268-78.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRubin D. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1974;66:688–701spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationImbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2004;86:4–29spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med. 2004;23(19):2937-60.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJoffe MM, Ten Have TR, Feldman HI, SE. K. Model selection, confounder control, and marginal structural models:review and new applications. The American Statistician. 2004;58:272–9.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656-64.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLazcano-Ponce E, Fernández E, Salazar-Martínez E, Hernández-Avila M. Estudios de cohorte. Metodología, sesgos y aplicación. Salud Pública de México. 2000;42:230-41.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRobins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):550-60.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationXie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Stat Med. 2005;24(20):3089-110.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPareja R. Safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in cervical tumors <2 cm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(5):572-4.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103-4.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSalvo G, Odetto D, Saez Perrotta MC, Noll F, Perrotta M, Pareja R, et al. Measurement of tumor size in early cervical cancer: an ever-evolving paradigm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(8):1215-23.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMatsuo K, Shimada M, Yamaguchi S, Matoda M, Nakanishi T, Kikkawa F, et al. Association of Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume and Survival for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(6):1086-98.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAviki EM, Chen L, Dessources K, Leitao MM, Wright JD. Impact of hospital volume on surgical management and outcomes for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(2):508-13.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationReiffel JA. Propensity Score Matching: The 'Devil is in the Details' Where More May Be Hidden than You Know. Am J Med. 2020;133(2):178-81.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. 1996. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:3-5.spa
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosariospa
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURspa
dc.subjectHisterectomíaspa
dc.subjectLaparoscopíaspa
dc.subjectLaparotomíaspa
dc.subjectNeoplasias del cuello uterinospa
dc.subjectProcedimientos quirúrgicos robotizadosspa
dc.subject.ddcIncidencia & prevención de la enfermedadspa
dc.subject.keywordHysterectomyspa
dc.subject.keywordLaparoscopyspa
dc.subject.keywordLaparotomyspa
dc.subject.keywordMinimally invasive surgeryspa
dc.subject.keywordUterine cervical neoplasmsspa
dc.subject.keywordRobotic surgical proceduresspa
dc.titleResultados oncológicos de la histerectomía radical laparoscópica versus por laparotomía en pacientes con cáncer cervical temprano: una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectivaspa
dc.title.TranslatedTitleOncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A multicenter analysis.eng
dc.typemasterThesiseng
dc.type.documentDescriptivo observacional retrospectivospa
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type.spaTesis de maestríaspa
local.department.reportEscuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Saludspa
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
RodriguezCastillo-JulianaLucia-2020.pdf
Tamaño:
1.25 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Tesis
Descargar
Colecciones
Maestría en Epidemiología