Key result
Endovascular aneurysm repair increased the risk of postoperative abdominal cancer compared to open repair (HR 1.20), but not overall cancer incidence (HR 1.09) or overall survival.
Why the study?
The study investigated the influence of cancer development on long-term outcome after elective endovascular vs. open repair of non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Does elective endovascular repair (EVAR) compared to open repair (OAR) affect long-term survival and cancer incidence in patients with non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Cohort (n=18,802)
Does elective endovascular repair (EVAR) compared to open repair (OAR) affect long-term survival and cancer incidence in patients with non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Hazard Ratio: 1.09 (95% CI 1–1.18)
Absolute Event Rate: 30.1% vs 27.6%
p-value: p=0.051
EVAR is associated with a higher long-term incidence of abdominal cancer compared to open repair, though overall survival and overall cancer incidence do not differ significantly.
EVAR associated with higher abdominal cancer risk versus open repair; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation before practice implications.
PURPOSE: The influence of cancer development on long-term outcome after elective endovascular (EVAR) vs. open repair (OAR) of non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) was investigated. METHODS: Patient survival and cancer incidence were recorded for 18,802 patients registered with the AOK health insurance company in Germany who underwent EVAR (n = 14,218) and OAR (n = 4584) in the years 2010 to 2016 (men n = 16,086, women n = 2716). All patients were preoperatively and in their history cancer-free. RESULTS: 30.1% of EVAR and 27.6% of OAR patients (p ≤ .001) developed cancer after a follow-up period of up to 9 years (Kaplan-Meier estimated). Patients with cancer had a significantly less favorable outcome compared to patients with no cancer (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.59-1.78, p < .001). After 9 years, the estimated survival of patients with and without cancer was 27.0% and 55.4%, respectively (p < .001). Survival of men and women did not differ significantly (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88-1.00, p = .061). In the Cox regression analysis (adjusted outcomes by operative approach, gender, age, and comorbidities), the postoperative cancer incidence was not significantly different between EVAR and OAR (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00-1.18, p = .051). However, EVAR showed an increased risk of postoperative development of abdominal cancer (HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07-1.35, p = .002). 48.0% of all EVAR patients and 53.4% of all OAR patients survived in the follow-up period of up to 9 years. This difference was not significant (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.91-1.02, p = .219). CONCLUSION: Cancer significantly worsened the long-term outcome after EVAR and OAR, without significant differences between the two repair methods in the overall cancer incidence. However, the higher abdominal cancer incidence with EVAR can affect quality of life including oncological therapy and therefore should be considered when determining the indication for surgery, and the patient should be informed about it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ettengruber et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=18,802). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. Open aneurysm repair (OAR) was evaluated on Postoperative overall cancer incidence (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18, p=0.051). Endovascular aneurysm repair increased the risk of postoperative abdominal cancer compared to open repair (HR 1.20), but not overall cancer incidence (HR 1.09) or overall survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: