Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

A Minimally Invasive Treatment Approach for Early-Stage Uterine Cervical Cancer: The Impact of the LACC Trial and a Literature Review

Background and Objectives: Recent studies have supported the non-inferiority of the minimally invasive treatment approach over the open approach. However, they have also underlined its inferiority regarding its oncological results, while preserving the short-term benefits. The direct effects of these results were represented by indication changes in international guidelines on the application of minimally invasive surgery for treating early-stage cervical cancer. Material and metods: Herein, a literature review, including studies between 1992 and 2017, was performed. Results: The results show that the studies published during this period supported the non-inferiority of the minimally invasive treatment approach for early-stage cervical cancer compared with the open approach. However, the studies included were unicentric, non-randomized and relied on a reduced number of patients. The results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer [LACC] trial could not have been considered, since only studies published between 1992 and 2017 were included. This trial firmly supported the advantages of the minimally invasive approach in treating early-stage cervical cancer. The literature published after 2018 highlighted the necessity for new clinical studies, randomized and prospective ones, to cover the defects of this study and to verify (or not) its results. Conclusions: the studies published after 2018 mainly focused on the deficiencies of the LACC trial and also on developing new methods that could improve this surgical technique, thus enhancing the safety of the minimally invasive approach in treating early-stage cervical cancer. However, none of the included studies succeeded to provide enough evidence to oppose the results obtained in the LACC trial. Therefore, in order to clarify the state of this surgical approach, the results of three ongoing randomized clinical trials are expected.

Trends in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Management in the US: A National Cancer Database Analysis

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial was published in 2018 and demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) yields inferior survival outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer compared to open surgery. This study investigates how the results of the LACC trial have impacted the selection of the primary treatment modality and adjuvant radiation utilization in early-stage cervical cancer. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we compared patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer before (1/2016-12/2017) and after (1/2019-12/2020) the LACC trial. A total of 7930 patients were included: 4609 before and 3321 after the LACC trial. There was a decline in MIS usage from 67% pre-LACC to 35% thereafter (p < 0.001). In both the pre- and post-LACC periods, patients undergoing radical MIS more frequently had small volume disease (pre-LACC tumors ≤ 2 cm, 48% MIS vs. 41% open, p = 0.023; post-LACC stage IA2, 22% vs. 15%, p = 0.002). Pre-LACC, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with White race (82% vs. 77%, p = 0.001) and private insurance (63% vs. 54%, p = 0.004), while there was no difference in socioeconomic factors in the post-LACC period. Although the proportion of patients treated with primary chemoradiation remained stable, the post-LACC cohort had a younger median age (52.47 vs. 56.37, p = 0.005) and more microscopic disease cases (13% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.002). There was no difference in the rate of radiation after radical hysterectomy before and after the trial (26% vs. 24%, p = 0.3). Conclusions: Post-LACC, patients were less likely to undergo MIS but received adjuvant radiation at similar rates, and primary chemoradiation patients were younger and more likely to have microscopic disease.

Robot-assisted pelvic and renal surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery: Literature review of cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experiences and cost-effectiveness by comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic- or open surgery for pelvic and renal operations.

METHODS

A narrative review was carried out.

RESULTS

When using robotic-assisted surgery, oncological and functional results are similar to after laparoscopic or open surgery. One exception may be a shorter survival in cancer of the cervix uteri. In addition, postoperative complications after robotic-assisted surgery are similar, bleeding and transfusion needs are less, and the hospital stay is shorter but the preparation of the operating theater before and after surgery and the operation times are longer. Finally, robot-assisted surgery has, in several studies, been reported to be not cost-effective primarily due to high investment costs. However, more recent studies provide improved cost-effectiveness estimates due to more effective preparation of the operating theater before surgery, improved surgeon experience, and decreased investment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and functional and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted surgery are similar to open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. The cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery is likely to equal or surpass the alternatives.

Expanding Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology Using the Potential of an Advanced Robotic System

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gynecology was introduced to achieve the same surgical objectives as traditional open surgery while minimizing trauma to surrounding tissues, reducing pain, accelerating recovery, and improving overall patient outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries, have become the standard for many gynecological procedures. In this review, we aim to summarize the advantages and main limitations to a broader adoption of robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopic surgeries in gynecology. We present a new surgical system, the Dexter Robotic System™ (Distalmotion, Switzerland), that facilitates the transition from laparoscopy expertise to robotic-assisted surgery.

Surgical Treatment for Early Cervical Cancer in the HPV Era: State of the Art

Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. The aim of this study is to focus on the state of the art of CC prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment and, within the latter, the role of surgery in the various stages of the disease with a focus on the impact of the LACC study (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial) on the scientific debate and clinical practice. We have discussed the controversial application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for tumors < 2 cm and the possibility of fertility-sparing surgery on young women desirous of pregnancy. This analysis provides support for surgeons in the choice of better management, including patients with a desire for offspring and the need for sentinel node biopsy (SNB) rather than pelvic lymphadenectomy for tumors < 4 cm, and without suspicious lymph nodes' involvement on imaging. Vaccines and early diagnosis of pre-cancerous lesions are the most effective public health tool to tackle cervical cancer worldwide.

Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Aim of our study was to evaluate whether the different laparotomic (ARH) or minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches (MIS) in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, present different patterns of recurrence of the disease. The secondary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of the variables most involved with the risk of relapse and therefore lower DFS and OS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study enrolled patients with definitive histological diagnosis of squamous or adenocarcinoma stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive or abdominal radical hysterectomy from 2001 to 2018.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 360 patients and 59 patients (16.4 %) reported a disease relapse. The data showed that ARH group was not associated with different recurrence patterns than MIS group (p = 0.14). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference regarding DFS (p = 0.52) and OS (p = 0.29) between the ARH group and the MIS group.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS, in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, is not associated with different relapse patterns compared to ARH, nor with a higher risk of distance metastasis and finally, without significant difference in term of DFS and OS. More studies are needed to determine the factors that modify the site of relapse.

Prospective Study on the Use of Endo-Stapler for Enclosed Colpotomy to Prevent Tumor Spillage in Gynecologic Oncology Minimally Invasive Surgeries

Background and Objectives

This is a prospective trial of the endo-stapler application for vaginal closure before colpotomy in cases of carcinoma endometrium and carcinoma cervix, managed by minimally invasive surgery with due consideration of its surgical technique and short-term oncologic follow-up outcomes.

Methods

This was a prospective, single center study completed between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022. A total of 62 patients (43 cases of carcinoma endometrium and 19 cases of carcinoma cervix) were recruited for the study. Oncologic survival outcomes at the end of 1 and 2 years were documented.

Results

There were no major intraoperative bowel, urinary, or vascular injuries. None of the cases required conversion to laparotomy peroperatively. Our study had 8 patients with carcinoma endometrium (8/43) and 7 patients of carcinoma cervix (7/19) who have completed 24 months of follow-up without any recurrence to date.

Conclusion

Endo-stapler application for enclosed colpotomy to prevent tumor spillage is a futuristic step in gynecologic oncology cases managed by laparoscopy.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review

Radical hysterectomy is a standard surgery to treat early-stage uterine cervical cancer. The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial has shown that patients receiving minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have a poorer prognosis than those receiving open radical hysterectomy; however, the reason for this remains unclear. The LACC trial had 2 concerns: the learning curve and the procedural effects. Appropriate management of the learning curve effect, including surgeons' skills, is required to correctly interpret the result of surgical randomized controlled trials. Whether the LACC trial managed the learning curve effect remains controversial, based on the surgeons' inclusion criteria and the distribution of institutions with recurrent cases. An appropriate surgical procedure is also needed, and avoiding intraoperative cancer cell spillage plays an important role during cancer surgery. Cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery to treat cervical cancer is caused by several factors, including 1) exposure of tumor, 2) the use of a uterine manipulator, and 3) direct handling of the uterine cervix. Unfortunately, these issues were not addressed by the LACC trial. We evaluated the results of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy while avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer. Our findings show that avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may ensure an equivalent oncologic outcome, comparable to that of open radical hysterectomy. Therefore, evaluating the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery with a better control of the learning curve and procedural effects is needed.

Is less more in the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses recent developments towards less radical surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. In the last decades, new treatment strategies have been developed aiming to reduce morbidity, without hampering oncological safety. We provide an update of the latest knowledge on safety and morbidity following less radical surgical procedures in early-stage cervical cancer. In cervical cancer with a tumour size of 2 cm or less, radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-sparing conisation) may be a well tolerated option. For patients with larger lesions (>2 cm) and wishing to preserve fertility, administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by less extensive surgery appears to be a feasible and well tolerated alternative to abdominal trachelectomy. With regard to lymph node assessment, increasing evidence shows the feasibility of the sentinel lymph node procedure instead of full pelvic lymphadenectomy. Prospective trials reporting on oncological safety are awaited.It is important to exercise caution when new surgical strategies are introduced. Despite promising retrospective data, prospective randomized studies may present unexpected results, for instance, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy showed inferior results compared to laparotomy.

SUMMARY

There is a shift towards less radical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. This review explores whether and when less is really more.

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Purpose

To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center.

Results

Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102–1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013–1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

The Surgeon's Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by surgeons in different phases and evaluate whether the proficiency of surgeons affects the survival outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 851 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2008 and June 2018 (every year from January to June) at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into four phases according to their sequence (phase one, 1-10 cases; phase two: 11-20 cases; phase three: 21-30 cases; phase four: > 30 cases). Demographics and clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed.

Results

There were no statistical differences between the open surgery and MIS groups regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The OS and DFS of patients in the MIS group in phase one were significantly lower than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group after adjustment (OS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.896; 95%CI, 1.303-6.435; DFS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.712; 95%CI, 1.289-5.706). Survival outcomes were not statistically significant when comparing different surgeons.

Conclusion

The phase one cases of MIS had lower OS and DFS than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group. Thus, we suggest that the proficiency of surgeons is associated with survival outcomes of MIS. Favorable outcomes can be obtained after a certain number of MIS cases.

Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods

Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results

27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.