Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41844495›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2026

Long-term survival outcomes of robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopy for the treatment of stage I endometrial cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis.

Sarah J Boyle, Allison Dona, Rachel I Vogel, Peter Argenta

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah J BoyleDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. SE, MMC 395, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: david441@umn.edu.
Allison DonaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. SE, MMC 395, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Rachel I VogelDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. SE, MMC 395, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. SE, MMC 806, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Peter ArgentaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. SE, MMC 395, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Timothy C. Hallstrom · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UM1TR004405 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Bruce R Blazar, Damien A Fair · 2023 to 2026
$30.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004405NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the long-term survival outcomes of robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic surgery for treatment of stage I endometrial cancer.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database, including patients with stage I endometrial cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017 (with follow-up through 2020) who underwent treatment with either robotic-assisted or traditional laparoscopic surgery. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Overall survival (OS) was compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors; hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals reported.

resultsA total of 127,342 patients with stage I endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery were included. The median follow-up among those still known to be alive was 69.7 months. Almost three-quarters (74.5%) received robotic-assisted surgery, while 25.5% received traditional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic and clinical factors were similar between groups. No differences in OS were observed by surgery modality (5-year OS: 91.7% for robotic vs. 91.4% for traditional laparoscopic surgery) and this remained after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors (HR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04).

conclusionsThere was no difference in OS for patients with stage I endometrial cancer treated with robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic surgery. These data demonstrate excellent survival outcomes in this cohort and do not favor a robotic-assisted or traditional laparoscopic approach. However, the full extent of a route-of-surgery decision may not be detected given the potential for late recurrences and deaths, highlighting the need for large, prospective studies with long duration of follow-up.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndometrial cancerLaparoscopyMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgeryUterine cancer

Identifiers

PMID41844495
PMCPMC13231473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.