Gynaecological OncologyNCT07546825
Laparotomy vs Laparoscopy in Endometrial Cancer Staging
A study testing laparoscopic surgical staging and open surgical staging in people with Gynaecological Oncology and Gynaecological Malignancies, run by Assiut University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies worldwide. Surgical staging is the cornerstone of management and traditionally performed via laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery, particularly laparoscopy, has emerged as an effective alternative with potential benefits in reducing… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Gynaecological Oncology, Gynaecological Malignancies, Laparoscopic
- What is being tested?
- laparoscopic surgical staging and open surgical staging
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 48 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 2 Jun 2026to 1 Oct 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Inclusion criteria:
- Histologically confirmed endometrial carcinoma, diagnosed by endometrial biopsy or dilatation and curettage.
- patient candidate for pelvic lymphadenectomy according to risk stratification in endometrial cancer according to ESGO/ESTRO/ESP, 2021 (6).
- Planned surgical staging including: total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy ± pelvic lymphadenectomy.
- good performance status : ECOG 0, 1, 2
- patients who provide informed written consent to participate in the study.
- Exclusion criteria:
- severe cardiopulmonary diseases (e.g unstable angina, severe COPD).
- Absolute contraindication to laparoscopy.
- stage Ⅲ and Ⅳ endometrial cancer.
- patients who received previous pelvic radiotherapy.
- patients who underwent prior lymphadenectomy.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Hisham El-Sayed Abou-Taleb, professor contact
Egypt1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Assiut University, Assiut,
Asyut
Alaa El-Din Mahmoud Ismail, professor, +201001106048, alaaismail@aun.edu.eg
Abdulrahman Muhammad Rageh, lecturer, +201005056259, Abdulrahmanrageh@med.aun.edu.eg
About this study
Official title: Perioperative Outcomes of Surgical Staging in Patients With Early-stage Endometrial Carcinoma: Comparison Between Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in a Low-resource Setting
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies worldwide. Surgical staging is the cornerstone of management and traditionally performed via laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery, particularly laparoscopy, has emerged as an effective alternative with potential benefits in reducing postoperative morbidity.
This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open (laparotomy) surgical staging in patients with endometrial cancer in low-resource settings. Primary aim: To compare early postoperative recovery after surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer between laparoscopic and open approaches, assessed primarily by time to ambulation.
Read more
- Secondary aim: To compare intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, lymph node yield), postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), quality of recovery (QoR-15), length of hospital stay, same day discharge(SDD), discrepancy between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology, delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy, one-year disease-free survival, direct hospital costs between both approaches, and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire.
Given the limited resources and variations in surgical expertise in low-resource settings, this study seeks to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of laparoscopy compared to laparotomy. The findings may help guide clinical decision-making and optimize surgical approaches in similar healthcare environments.
Read the detailed description
Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries, with increasing incidence related to obesity, aging, and metabolic disorders. Most patients present with early-stage disease confined to the uterus, making surgical staging the cornerstone of treatment. Standard management includes total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node assessment when indicated for accurate staging and risk stratification . Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), particularly laparoscopy, has increasingly replaced laparotomy in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer because of its perioperative advantages. Previous studies demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery is associated with reduced blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal activity while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes to open surgery. Recently, greater emphasis has been placed on patient-centered outcomes and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Early postoperative recovery is considered an important indicator of surgical quality and functional rehabilitation. Time to ambulation is a simple and clinically relevant marker of recovery, as delayed mobilization is associated with prolonged hospitalization and increased postoperative morbidity. Faster recovery may also facilitate earlier initiation of adjuvant therapy when indicated. Additionally, discrepancies between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology may alter risk stratification and postoperative management. Despite strong evidence supporting laparoscopy, most data originate from high-resource settings with advanced ERAS systems. Evidence from low-resource settings remains limited, particularly regarding functional recovery metrics, cost-effectiveness, and real-world delays in adjuvant therapy. Furthermore, few randomized trials have incorporated patient-reported recovery outcomes alongside oncologic endpoints.Therefore, this study aims to compare laparoscopic and open surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer regarding early postoperative recovery, perioperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy, and concordance between preoperative and final histopathological findings.
- Being tested
- laparoscopic surgical staging, open surgical staging
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
laparoscopic surgical stagingProcedure or surgery
surgical staging by laparoscopy
open surgical stagingProcedure or surgery
surgical staging through open surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic surgical staging | Other | surgical staging by laparoscopy Receives: Procedure: laparoscopic surgical staging |
| Open surgical staging (laparotomy) | Other | surgical staging by open surgery Receives: Procedure: open surgical staging |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Early postoperative recovery assessed by time to ambulation (hours).
Measured: From the end of surgery until the patient achieves independent ambulation or ambulation with minimal assistance, assessed during the first 24 postoperative hours.
Secondary outcomes (18)
Comparison of hospital stay duration between laparoscopic and open surgical staging
Measured: From the day of surgery through hospital discharge, assessed up to 7 days postoperatively.
comparsion between same day discgarge between laparoscopic and open surgical staging
Measured: Day 0 (day of surgery)
Pelvic lymph node yield (number of nodes)
Comparison of the total number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved between laparoscopic and open surgical staging.
Measured: At final histopathological examination (within 2 weeks postoperatively)
Short-Term Oncologic Outcomes
One-year disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the time from surgery to first documented recurrence (local, regional, or distant) or death from any cause.
Measured: follow up for one year
Postoperative quality of recovery
Postoperative quality of recovery assessed by the Quality Of Recovery -15 questionnaire (QoR-15 questionnaire) 0-150 130-150: Excellent recovery 122-129: Good recovery 90-121: Moderate recovery <90: Poor recovery / significant postoperative impairment
Measured: at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours postoperatively , and at time of hospital discharge (up to 5 postoperative days).
Comparison of estimated blood loss during surgery between laparoscopic and open surgical staging.
Measured: During surgery (intraoperative period)
Comparison of intraoperative complications between laparoscopic and open surgical staging.
Measured: During surgery
Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification, Grades I-V)
Comparison of the incidence and severity of postoperative complications between laparoscopic and open surgical staging. Complications will be graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, where Grade I represents minor deviation from normal postoperative course and Grade V represents death.
Measured: Within 30 days after surgery
comparsion of health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire between open and laparoscopic surgical staging
Measured: baseline (preoperative), 6 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively.
hospital-based cost comparison between both surgical approaches
Hospital-based costs will include operating room time cost, surgical instruments and energy devices, hospital stay cost, and costs related to the management of postoperative complications occurring within 30 days after surgery.
Measured: From surgery until hospital discharge, assessed up to 30 days postoperatively.
Discrepancy between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology
Comparison of histological type, tumor grade, and disease characteristics between preoperative endometrial sampling pathology and the final postoperative histopathological diagnosis.
Measured: From preoperative endometrial sampling through final postoperative histopathological assessment, up to 30 days after surgery.
Conversion Rate
Rate and causes of conversion from laparoscopy to open surgery in the laparoscopic arm.
Measured: guring surgery
Delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy
Measured: Defined as the interval between date of surgery and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Delayed initiation will be considered when adjuvant treatment is started more than 6 weeks after surgery.
Readmission within 6 weeks after surgery.
Measured: within 6 weeks postoperative
Total postoperative analgesic consumption during hospital stay.
Measured: "From arrival at the recovery room until hospital discharge (up to 72 hours postoperatively)"
Time to bowel function recovery
Measured: From the end of surgery until first passage of flatus and stool, assessed up to 7 days postoperatively.
Time to oral intake
Measured: From the end of surgery until first tolerated oral intake, assessed up to 72 hours postoperatively.
Postoperative pain score using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Measured: Time Frame: 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and at hospital discharge (up to 7 days postoperatively).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Apr 2026
- Study start2 Jun 2026
- Primary completion1 Apr 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Oct 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Gynaecological OncologyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assiut UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, AM Abdelbary, Assiut University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07546825
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EC-STAGE-LL-2026
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 9 Apr 2026
- Last updated
- 10 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Weiss ME, Piacentine LB. Psychometric properties of the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale. J Nurs Meas. 2006 Winter;14(3):163-80. doi: 10.1891/jnm-v14i3a002.
PubMed 17278337Jaiswal A, Huang KG. "Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy - Archaic to modern era". Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017 Oct-Dec;6(4):147-151. doi: 10.1016/j.gmit.2017.08.002. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
PubMed 30254903Abu-Rustum NR. Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: a modern approach to surgical staging. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):288-97. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0026.
PubMed 24586087Torok P, Krasznai Z, Molnar S, Lampe R, Jakab A. Preoperative assessment of endometrial cancer. Transl Cancer Res. 2020 Dec;9(12):7746-7758. doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-2068.
PubMed 35117377Kong TW, Lee KM, Cheong JY, Kim WY, Chang SJ, Yoo SC, Yoon JH, Chang KH, Ryu HS. Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgical staging procedure for endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Jun;21(2):106-11. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.2.106. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
PubMed 20613901Bretova P, Ndukwe MI, Laco J, Vosmikova H, Reslova T, Pohankova D, Balcarova K, Haviger J, Havigerova JM, Sirak I. Preoperative risk stratification in endometrial cancer using ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2021 guidelines: accuracy with and without molecular classification. BMC Cancer. 2025 Aug 11;25(1):1302. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14741-5.
PubMed 40790476Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Cibula D, Colombo N, Creutzberg CL, Ledermann J, Mirza MR, Vergote I, Abu-Rustum NR, Bosse T, Chargari C, Espenel S, Fagotti A, Fotopoulou C, Gatius S, Gonzalez-Martin A, Lax S, Levy B, Lorusso D, Macchia G, Marth C, Morice P, Oaknin A, Raspollini MR, Schwameis R, Sehouli J, Sturdza A, Taylor A, Westermann A, Wimberger P, Planchamp F, Nout RA. ESGO-ESTRO-ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma: update 2025. Lancet Oncol. 2025 Aug;26(8):e423-e435. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00167-6.
PubMed 40744042Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5331-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
PubMed 19805679Imai K, Hirooka-Nakama J, Hotta Y, Shigeta H. A Review of Laparoscopic Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy for Early-stage Endometrial Cancer: Extraperitoneal Approach May Have the Advantage over Intraperitoneal Approach. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023 Oct 31;13(1):10-18. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_25_23. eCollection 2024 Jan-Mar.
PubMed 38487605Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 31;10(10):CD006655. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub3.
PubMed 30379327Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, Ledermann J, Bosse T, Chargari C, Fagotti A, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez Martin A, Lax S, Lorusso D, Marth C, Morice P, Nout RA, O'Donnell D, Querleu D, Raspollini MR, Sehouli J, Sturdza A, Taylor A, Westermann A, Wimberger P, Colombo N, Planchamp F, Creutzberg CL. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230. Epub 2020 Dec 18.
PubMed 33397713Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763.
PubMed 36633525
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Perioperative Outcomes of Surgical Staging in Patients With Early-stage Endometrial Carcinoma: Comparison Between Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in a Low-resource Setting
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07546825
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EC-STAGE-LL-2026
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Apr 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 23 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies worldwide. Surgical staging is the cornerstone of management and traditionally performed via laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery, particularly laparoscopy, has emerged as an effective alternative with potential benefits in reducing postoperative morbidity.
This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open (laparotomy) surgical staging in patients with endometrial cancer in low-resource settings. Primary aim: To compare early postoperative recovery after surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer between laparoscopic and open approaches, assessed primarily by time to ambulation.
- Secondary aim: To compare intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, lymph node yield), postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification), quality of recovery (QoR-15), length of hospital stay, same day discharge(SDD), discrepancy between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology, delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy, one-year disease-free survival, direct hospital costs between both approaches, and quality of life using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire.
Given the limited resources and variations in surgical expertise in low-resource settings, this study seeks to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of laparoscopy compared to laparotomy. The findings may help guide clinical decision-making and optimize surgical approaches in similar healthcare environments.
Detailed description
Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed countries, with increasing incidence related to obesity, aging, and metabolic disorders. Most patients present with early-stage disease confined to the uterus, making surgical staging the cornerstone of treatment. Standard management includes total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node assessment when indicated for accurate staging and risk stratification . Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), particularly laparoscopy, has increasingly replaced laparotomy in the surgical staging of endometrial cancer because of its perioperative advantages. Previous studies demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery is associated with reduced blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal activity while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes to open surgery. Recently, greater emphasis has been placed on patient-centered outcomes and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Early postoperative recovery is considered an important indicator of surgical quality and functional rehabilitation. Time to ambulation is a simple and clinically relevant marker of recovery, as delayed mobilization is associated with prolonged hospitalization and increased postoperative morbidity. Faster recovery may also facilitate earlier initiation of adjuvant therapy when indicated. Additionally, discrepancies between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology may alter risk stratification and postoperative management. Despite strong evidence supporting laparoscopy, most data originate from high-resource settings with advanced ERAS systems. Evidence from low-resource settings remains limited, particularly regarding functional recovery metrics, cost-effectiveness, and real-world delays in adjuvant therapy. Furthermore, few randomized trials have incorporated patient-reported recovery outcomes alongside oncologic endpoints.Therefore, this study aims to compare laparoscopic and open surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer regarding early postoperative recovery, perioperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy, and concordance between preoperative and final histopathological findings.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Laparoscopic surgical staging | Other | Procedure: laparoscopic surgical stagingsurgical staging by laparoscopy |
| Open surgical staging (laparotomy) | Other | Procedure: open surgical stagingsurgical staging by open surgery |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| laparoscopic surgical stagingsurgical staging by laparoscopy | Procedure or surgery | Laparoscopic surgical staging |
| open surgical stagingsurgical staging through open surgery | Procedure or surgery | Open surgical staging (laparotomy) |
Primary outcome
Early postoperative recovery assessed by time to ambulation (hours).
Time frame: From the end of surgery until the patient achieves independent ambulation or ambulation with minimal assistance, assessed during the first 24 postoperative hours.
18 secondary outcomes
Comparison of hospital stay duration between laparoscopic and open surgical staging
Time frame: From the day of surgery through hospital discharge, assessed up to 7 days postoperatively.
comparsion between same day discgarge between laparoscopic and open surgical staging
Time frame: Day 0 (day of surgery)
Pelvic lymph node yield (number of nodes)
Time frame: At final histopathological examination (within 2 weeks postoperatively)
Short-Term Oncologic Outcomes
Time frame: follow up for one year
Postoperative quality of recovery
Time frame: at 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours postoperatively , and at time of hospital discharge (up to 5 postoperative days).
Comparison of estimated blood loss during surgery between laparoscopic and open surgical staging.
Time frame: During surgery (intraoperative period)
Comparison of intraoperative complications between laparoscopic and open surgical staging.
Time frame: During surgery
Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification, Grades I-V)
Time frame: Within 30 days after surgery
comparsion of health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire between open and laparoscopic surgical staging
Time frame: baseline (preoperative), 6 weeks, and 12 weeks postoperatively.
hospital-based cost comparison between both surgical approaches
Time frame: From surgery until hospital discharge, assessed up to 30 days postoperatively.
Discrepancy between preoperative curettage pathology and final histopathology
Time frame: From preoperative endometrial sampling through final postoperative histopathological assessment, up to 30 days after surgery.
Conversion Rate
Time frame: guring surgery
Delay in initiation of adjuvant therapy
Time frame: Defined as the interval between date of surgery and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Delayed initiation will be considered when adjuvant treatment is started more than 6 weeks after surgery.
Readmission within 6 weeks after surgery.
Time frame: within 6 weeks postoperative
Total postoperative analgesic consumption during hospital stay.
Time frame: "From arrival at the recovery room until hospital discharge (up to 72 hours postoperatively)"
Time to bowel function recovery
Time frame: From the end of surgery until first passage of flatus and stool, assessed up to 7 days postoperatively.
Time to oral intake
Time frame: From the end of surgery until first tolerated oral intake, assessed up to 72 hours postoperatively.
Postoperative pain score using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
Time frame: Time Frame: 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and at hospital discharge (up to 7 days postoperatively).
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 17278337Weiss ME, Piacentine LB. Psychometric properties of the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale. J Nurs Meas. 2006 Winter;14(3):163-80. doi: 10.1891/jnm-v14i3a002.
- Background: PubMed 30254903Jaiswal A, Huang KG. "Energy devices in gynecological laparoscopy - Archaic to modern era". Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017 Oct-Dec;6(4):147-151. doi: 10.1016/j.gmit.2017.08.002. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
- Background: PubMed 24586087Abu-Rustum NR. Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: a modern approach to surgical staging. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Feb;12(2):288-97. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0026.
- Background: PubMed 35117377Torok P, Krasznai Z, Molnar S, Lampe R, Jakab A. Preoperative assessment of endometrial cancer. Transl Cancer Res. 2020 Dec;9(12):7746-7758. doi: 10.21037/tcr-20-2068.
- Background: PubMed 20613901Kong TW, Lee KM, Cheong JY, Kim WY, Chang SJ, Yoo SC, Yoon JH, Chang KH, Ryu HS. Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgical staging procedure for endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2010 Jun;21(2):106-11. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.2.106. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
- Background: PubMed 40790476Bretova P, Ndukwe MI, Laco J, Vosmikova H, Reslova T, Pohankova D, Balcarova K, Haviger J, Havigerova JM, Sirak I. Preoperative risk stratification in endometrial cancer using ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2021 guidelines: accuracy with and without molecular classification. BMC Cancer. 2025 Aug 11;25(1):1302. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14741-5.
- Background: PubMed 40744042Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Cibula D, Colombo N, Creutzberg CL, Ledermann J, Mirza MR, Vergote I, Abu-Rustum NR, Bosse T, Chargari C, Espenel S, Fagotti A, Fotopoulou C, Gatius S, Gonzalez-Martin A, Lax S, Levy B, Lorusso D, Macchia G, Marth C, Morice P, Oaknin A, Raspollini MR, Schwameis R, Sehouli J, Sturdza A, Taylor A, Westermann A, Wimberger P, Planchamp F, Nout RA. ESGO-ESTRO-ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma: update 2025. Lancet Oncol. 2025 Aug;26(8):e423-e435. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00167-6.
- Background: PubMed 19805679Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5331-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
- Background: PubMed 38487605Imai K, Hirooka-Nakama J, Hotta Y, Shigeta H. A Review of Laparoscopic Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy for Early-stage Endometrial Cancer: Extraperitoneal Approach May Have the Advantage over Intraperitoneal Approach. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023 Oct 31;13(1):10-18. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_25_23. eCollection 2024 Jan-Mar.
- Background: PubMed 30379327Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 31;10(10):CD006655. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub3.
- Background: PubMed 33397713Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, Ledermann J, Bosse T, Chargari C, Fagotti A, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez Martin A, Lax S, Lorusso D, Marth C, Morice P, Nout RA, O'Donnell D, Querleu D, Raspollini MR, Sehouli J, Sturdza A, Taylor A, Westermann A, Wimberger P, Colombo N, Planchamp F, Creutzberg CL. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230. Epub 2020 Dec 18.
- Background: PubMed 36633525Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17-48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Gynaecological Oncology
Enrolling by invitation
Peer Ambassador in Gyn Onc Trials
Ovarian Cancer
Recruiting
Methylation Profiling in Self-samples for Identification of (Epi)Genetic Biomarkers for Gynecological Cancers
Gynaecological Cancers, Ovarian Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
Ferric Derisomaltose and Outcomes in the Recovery of Gynecologic Oncology: ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery)
Gynecologic Cancer, Anemia
RecruitingObservational study
GYNGHER - HER2 Expression in Gynecological Malignancies: a Brazilian Cohort
Gynaecological Cancers
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Protocol for Non-invasive Gynaecological Surveillance in Lynch Syndrome
Lynch Syndrome
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Hisham El-Sayed Abou-Taleb, professor contact
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing laparoscopic surgical staging and open surgical staging in people with Gynaecological Oncology and Gynaecological Malignancies, run by Assiut University at 1 site in Egypt.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Alaa El-Din Mahmoud Ismail, professor (+201001106048, alaaismail@aun.edu.eg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Early postoperative recovery assessed by time to ambulation (hours). (time frame: From the end of surgery until the patient achieves independent ambulation or ambulation with minimal assistance, assessed during the first 24 postoperative hours.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07546825, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Jun 2026.