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)

ROCC/GOG-3043: a randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial is the only randomized trial to date addressing the role of surgical approach in cervical cancer; however, this non-inferiority trial of minimally invasive surgery vs an open approach in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer did not meet its primary end point of 4.5-year disease-free survival and was terminated early because of significantly worse disease-specific survival, overall survival, and locoregional recurrence in the minimally invasive surgery cohort.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

Our trial compares 3-year disease-free survival after robotic-assisted or abdominal radical or simple (in select cases) hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that disease-free survival is non-inferior after robotic-assisted vs abdominal radical or simple hysterectomy.

TRIAL DESIGN

This multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial conducted through the Gynecologic Oncology Group has specified surgeon qualification criteria. It requires a pelvic magnetic resonance imaging scan in all patients before enrollment and will use 1:1 randomization to assign patients to robotic-assisted or abdominal hysterectomy. All surgeons must use specified tumor-containment techniques in both arms. It does not allow trans-cervical uterine manipulators.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Patients with early-stage (2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IA2-IB2) cervical cancer. Histologic types are limited to squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging must confirm a tumor that is 4 cm or less without definitive extra-cervical spread. A simple hysterectomy is allowed in select cases after trial study principal investigator review.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

The primary end point is the 3-year disease-free survival between robotic-assisted or abdominal hysterectomy.

SAMPLE SIZE

The trial will randomly allocate 840 patients, with planned interim analysis for futility (oncologic safety) after we have randomly allocated 370 and 640 patients.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

2030.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04831580.

Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions

In alignment with the World Health Organization's strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, substantial progress has been made in the treatment of this malignancy. Cervical cancer, largely driven by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, is considered preventable and manageable because of its well-established etiology. Advancements in precision screening technologies, such as DNA methylation triage, HPV integration detection, liquid biopsies, and artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostics, have augmented traditional screening methods such as HPV nucleic acid testing and cytology. Therapeutic strategies aimed at eradicating HPV and reversing precancerous lesions have been refined as pivotal measures for disease prevention. The controversy surrounding surgery for early-stage cervical cancer revolves around identifying optimal candidates for minimally invasive and conservative procedures without compromising oncological outcomes. Recent clinical trials have yielded promising results for the development of systemic therapies for advanced cervical cancer. Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and targeted therapy have demonstrated significant effectiveness, marking a substantial advancement in cervical cancer management. Various combination therapies have been validated, and ongoing trials aim to enhance outcomes through the development of novel drugs and optimized combination regimens. The prospect of eradicating cervical cancer as the first malignancy to be eliminated is now within reach. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the latest scientific insights, with a particular focus on precision managements for various stages of cervical disease, and explore future research directions in cervical cancer.

Comparison of outcomes of laparotomic and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the outcomes of laparotomic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MISRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent LRH or MISRH (laparoscopic/robotic) at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, from 2002 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical safety (operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of postoperative stay, and perioperative complications), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence pattern were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a 3:1 ratio was performed to balance prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Of the 760 patients (entire cohort), 614 underwent LRH and 146 underwent MISRH. After PSM, 394 and 140 patients were included in the LRH and MISRH groups, respectively. The 5-year OS rate was significantly lower in the MISRH group than in the LRH group (85.6% vs. 93.2%, p=0.043), and the 5-year DFS rate (p=0.21) did not differ significantly. After PSM, the 5-year OS rates did not differ significantly between the MISRH and LRH groups (87.1% vs. 92.1%, p=0.393). The MISRH group had a significantly shorter operation time (p<0.001), lower intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p<0.001), and shorter postoperative stay (p<0.001) but a significantly higher rate of intraoperative bladder injury (p<0.001) than the LRH group.

CONCLUSION

After PSM, MISRH is associated with nonsignificantly lower OS but a significantly higher risk of intraoperative urological complications than LRH.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer: an overview of current trends

Background

The capabilities of minimally invasive surgery, either as conventional laparoscopy, or as robotic surgery, have increased to an extent that it enables complex operations in the field of gynaecological oncology.

Objective

To document the role of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery in cancer.

Materials and methods

A review of the literature that shaped international guidelines and clinical practice.

Main outcome measures

Current guidelines of major international scientific associations and trends in accepted clinical practice.

Results

In recent years, evidence on oncologic outcome has limited the role of minimally invasive techniques in cervical cancer, while the treatment of early endometrial cancer with laparoscopy and robotic surgery has become the international standard. In ovarian cancer, the role of minimally invasive surgery is still limited. Current evidence on perioperative morbidity underlines the necessity to implicate minimally invasive techniques whenever possible.

Conclusion

The optimal surgical route for the treatment of gynaecological cancer remains in many cases controversial. The role of minimally invasive surgery remains increasing in the course of time.

What is new?

This comprehensive review offers an entire perspective on the current role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer therapy.

Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer

Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.

Is minimally invasive radical surgery safe for patients with cervical cancer ≤2 cm in size? (MISAFE): Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators coLLborAtion study (GORILLA-1003)

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinicopathological factors associated with disease recurrence for patients with 2018 FIGO stage IA with lymphovascular invasion to IB1 cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

METHODS

A total of 722 patients with cervical cancer between January 2010 and February 2021 were identified. Clinicopathological factors related to disease recurrence were analyzed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. To determine prognostic factors for DFS, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.

RESULTS

Of 722 patients, 49 (6.8%) experienced disease recurrence (37 pelvis, 1 para-aortic lymph node, and 11 peritoneum). Five-year DFS and OS rates were 90.7% and 98.1%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, risk factors associated with disease recurrence were residual disease in the remaining cervix (OR, 3.122; 95% CI, 1.152-8.461; p = 0.025), intracorporeal colpotomy (OR, 3.252; 95% CI, 1.507-7.017; p = 0.003), and positive resection margin (OR, 3.078; 95% CI, 1.031-9.193; p = 0.044). The non-conization group had a higher percentage of stage IB1 (77.4% vs. 64.6%; p = 0.004) and larger tumor (10 mm vs. 7 mm; p < 0.001) than the conization group. Intracorporeal colpotomy and residual disease in the remaining cervix were independent variables associated with disease recurrence in patients undergoing MIS following conization.

CONCLUSION

During MIS, patients with cervical cancer ≤2 cm in size can be vulnerable to peritoneal recurrences. Patients diagnosed with invasive cancer through conization often have low-risk pathological features, which may affect their survival outcomes.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Radical Hysterectomy Compared to Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery-average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery-average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD -66 and USD -373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic.

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.

Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.

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.

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has been reported to be similar oncologic outcome compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in many retrospective studies. In Japan, LRH has been covered by insurance since April 2018. In 2018, the same year that LRH became covered by insurance, Ramirez et al. at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported the results of a large phase III laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial (LACC trial) on the prognosis of open versus laparoscopic/robot-assisted minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. The results showed that minimally invasive approaches were associated with a higher rate of recurrence and death. At this point, it is not clear what is wrong with LRH and why it has a poorer prognosis compared to ARH. In this report, after the LACC report, we would like to review the current status of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer and future directions.

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Since the release of the LACC trial results in 2018, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has received huge attention and heated discussion. We developed modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) incorporating a series of measures to prevent tumor spillage, which has been performed in our center since 2015.

OBJECTIVE

Present study retrospectively analyzed relevant indicators of MLRH and evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) primarily in the treatment of early cervical cancer compared with open surgery.

METHODS

Patients with 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical stages 1B1 and 2A1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in the gynecological department of our hospital from October 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled retrospectively in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group (n = 336) and MLRH group (n = 302). Clinical characteristics, surgical indices, and survival prognosis were analyzed, including 2.5-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2.5-year DFS rate, recurrence rate, and recurrence pattern.

RESULTS

Compared to the ORH group, the MLRH group exhibited a longer operative time, longer normal bladder function recovery time, less intraoperative blood loss volume, and more harvested pelvic lymph nodes (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, the 2.5-year OS, 2.5-year DFS, and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, the recurrence pattern was significantly different (P < 0.05). The MLRH group mainly exhibited local single metastasis (7/11), whereas the ORH group mainly exhibited distant multiple metastases (14/16). Stratified analysis revealed that overall survival rate was higher in the MLRH group than in the ORH group in patients with stage 1B1 and middle invasion (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MLRH does not show a survival disadvantage in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer when compared with open surgery. In addition, MLRH shows a survival advantage in patients with stage 1B1 and middle 1/3 invasion. Considering this is a retrospective study, further prospective study is necessary for more sufficient data support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Present research is a retrospective study. The study had retrospectively registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), and the registered number is ChiCTR1900026306.

Evaluation of Surgical Approaches and Use of Adjuvant Radiotherapy with Respect to Oncologic Outcomes in the Management of Clinically Early-Stage Cervical Carcinoma

The standard of care for early-stage cervix cancer is radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy may be administered to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients considered to be at elevated risk based on a combination of pathologic factors. We performed a retrospective review to determine oncologic outcomes in patients treated for early-stage cervix cancer and to determine if surgical approach impacted oncologic outcomes or the decision to use adjuvant therapy. In total, 174 women underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy over the 15-year period. Most of these women (146) had open surgery and 28 had minimally invasive surgery (MIS). In total, 81 had adjuvant pelvic RT; 76 in the open surgery group (52%) and 5 in the MIS group (18%). Five-year PFS and OS, respectively, were 84% and 91%. Five-year PFS was significantly lower in patients who had MIS vs. open surgery, without a difference in 5-year OS, suggesting MIS should be avoided. Five-year PFS was the same with RT or with its omission, despite those treated with RT having higher risk disease. We have demonstrated excellent outcomes in patients with early-stage cervix cancer after primary surgery and selective use of RT, with few recurrences and excellent survival.

The impacts of minimally invasive surgery on intermediate- or high-risk cervical cancer patients received adjuvant radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with risk factors after radical hysterectomy (RH). Early initiated CRT could result in superior oncological outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the survival outcome of intermediate- or high-risk cervical cancer (CC) patients who, received adjuvant CRT between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery.

METHODS

Data on stage IB1-IIA2 patients who underwent RH and postoperative CRT in our institution, from 2014 to 2017, were retrospectively collected. Patients with high or intermediate-risk factors who met the Sedlis criteria received sequential chemoradiation (SCRT). According to the surgical approaches, the enrolled patients were divided into MIS and open surgery groups. Then, the disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 129 enrolled CC patients, 68 received open surgery and 61 received MIS. The median time interval from surgery to chemotherapy and to radiotherapy was shorter in the MIS group (7 days vs. 8 days, P=0.014; 28 days vs. 35, P<0.001). Three-year DFS and OS were similar in both groups (85.2% vs. 89.7%, P=0.274; 89.9% vs. 98.5%, P=0.499). Further, sub-analysis indicated that the DFS and OS in intermediate/high-risk groups had no significant difference. Cox-multivariate analyses found that tumor size >4 cm and time interval from surgery to radiotherapy beyond 7 weeks were adverse independent prognostic factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

Based on the population we studied, for early-stage (IB1-IIA2) CC patients with intermediate- or high-risk factors who received postoperative SCRT, although the difference was not significant, the DFS and OS in the MIS group were slightly lower than the ORH group, and tumor size >4 cm and delayed adjuvant radiotherapy beyond 7 weeks were risk factors for recurrence.

Association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer

Objective

To evaluate association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who underwent LRH for cervical cancer with squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype from January 2014 to December 2018 were reviewed. All patients were restaged according to the 2018 FIGO staging system. Those who were in FIGO 2018 stage IB1 met the inclusion criteria. General characteristics and oncologic outcomes including recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed.

Results

A total of 1273 patients were included in the analysis. 616 (48.4%) patients underwent preoperative biopsy, and 657 (51.6%) patients underwent conization. Residual disease was observed in 822 (64.6%) patients. During a median follow-up of 50.30 months, 30 (2.4%) patients experienced recurrence. The univariate analysis showed that patients who had larger tumor diameter, the presence of residual tumor at final pathology, and underwent adjuvant treatment had a significant higher risk of recurrence (P < 0.01). Conversely, patients who underwent conization were significantly less likely to experience recurrence (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the independent risk factor associated with an increased risk of recurrence was resident macroscopic tumor (HR: 38.4, 95% CI 4.20–351.64, P = 0.001). On the contrary, preoperative conization was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrence (HR: 0.26; 95% CI 0.10–0.63, P = 0.003). The Kaplan–Meier curves showed patients who underwent conization had improved survival over those who underwent biopsy (5 year RFS: 98.6 vs 95.1%, P = 0.001). The 5 year RFS of patients with residual tumor was significantly different (R0: 99.2%, R1: 97.4%, R2: 93.6%, P < 0.001), especially the patients with residual macroscopic tumor after conization (R0: 99.5%, R1: 99.0%, R2:92.4%, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Preoperative conization and the absence of residual tumor at the time of surgery might play a protective role in patients with FIGO 2018 IB1 cervical cancer following LRH, which support the theory of the influence of intraoperative tumor spread during radical hysterectomy. Further prospective evidence is needed.

The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

This is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used.

RESULTS

We identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

This multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) emerged as the mainstay in the surgical management of cervical cancer, bringing advantages such as lower operative morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes in numerous retrospective studies. However, in 2018, a prospective phase III randomized controlled trial, “Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix (LACC)”, unexpectedly reported that MIS was associated with a statistically significant poorer overall survival and disease-free survival compared to open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Various hypotheses have been raised by the authors to try to explain these results, but the LACC trial was not powered to answer those questions. In this study, through an exhaustive literature review, we wish to explore some of the potential causes that may explain the poorer oncologic outcomes associated with MIS, including the type of MIS surgery, the size of the lesion, the impact of CO2 pneumoperitoneum, prior conization, the use of uterine manipulator, the use of protective measures, and the effect of surgical expertise/learning curve.

Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Literature Review

Simple Summary

Despite being a preventable disease, cervical cancer still causes morbidity and deaths worldwide. In the early stages (FIGO IA1 with lymph-vascular space invasion-IIA1), the disease is highly curable. The primary treatment for early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. This surgical treatment has changed during the past decades, and we aimed to review and discuss the advances in the literature. We performed a literature review through PubMed focusing on English articles about the topic of surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. The emergent topics considered here are the FIGO 2018 staging system update, conservative management for selected patients, sentinel lymph node mapping, fertility preservation, surgical approach, and management of tumors up to 2 cm. These topics show an evolvement to a more tailored treatment to prevent morbidity and assure oncologic safety.

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) remains a public health issue worldwide despite preventive measures. Surgical treatment in the early-stage CC has evolved during the last decades. Our aim was to review the advances in the literature and summarize the ongoing studies on this topic. To this end, we conducted a literature review through PubMed focusing on English-language articles on the surgical management of early-stage CC. The emergent topics considered here are the FIGO 2018 staging system update, conservative management with less radical procedures for selected patients, lymph node staging, fertility preservation, preferred surgical approach, management of tumors up to 2 cm, and prognosis. In terms of updating FIGO, we highlight the inclusion of lymph node status on staging and the possibility of imaging. Regarding the preferred surgical approach, we emphasize the LACC trial impact worldwide in favor of open surgery; however, we discuss the controversial application of this for tumors < 2 cm. In summary, all topics show a tendency to provide patients with tailored treatment that avoids morbidity while maintaining oncologic safety, which is already possible in high-income countries. We believe that efforts should focus on making this a reality for low-income countries as well.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Results

This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, p=0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, p=0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, p=0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, p=0.041).

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

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.

Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Using the No-Look No-Touch Technique for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

Simple Summary

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is contraindicated in early stage cervical cancer cases because of poor prognosis. The no-look no-touch technique (NLNT) eliminates intraoperative tumor spillage and may improve survival outcomes. We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy performed using NLNT. We compared the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and NLNT using inverse probability of treatment weighting. We found no significant differences in disease-free survival between the groups, even in patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm. We also studied NLNT’s non-inferiority to abdominal radical hysterectomy by evaluating heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and those of our study. We did not observe significant heterogeneity, although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study compared with the non-inferiority margin in the LACC trial. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT is a plausible alternative surgical treatment for early stage cervical cancer.

Abstract

We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using the no-look no-touch technique (NLNT). We analyzed patients with early stage (IA2, IB1, and IIA1, FIGO2008) cervical cancer treated between December 2014 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). We compared the outcomes of the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and NLNT groups using a Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), according to propensity scores. We also evaluated NLNT’s non-inferiority to ARH using an evaluation of heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and our study. ARH and NLNT were performed in 118 and 113 patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After IPTW adjustment, the 3-year DFS rates (NLNT 92.4%; ARH 94.0%) and overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Furthermore, the 3-year DFS rates for patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm in the NLNT (85.0%) and ARH (90.3%) groups did not differ significantly. No significant heterogeneity was observed between the LACC trial and our study (I² = 60.5%, p = 0.111), although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT provides a favorable prognosis for early stage cervical cancer.

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.

Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 update

Since the publication of the 2018 FIGO Cancer Report, giant strides have been made in the global effort to reduce the burden of cervical cancer, with the World Health Organization (WHO) rolling out a global strategy for cervical cancer elimination, aiming for implementation by 2030. In over 130 countries, including low- and middle-income countries, HPV vaccination is now included in the national program. Screening has seen major advances with wider implementation of HPV testing. These interventions will take a few years to show their impact. Meanwhile, over half a million new cases are added each year. FIGO's revised staging of cervical cancer (2018) has been widely implemented and retrospective analyses of data based on the new staging have been published. Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to be disadvantageous in women with cervical cancer. This chapter discusses the management of cervical cancer based on the stage of disease, including attention to palliation and quality of life issues.

Radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Europe: characteristics, outcomes and evaluation of ESGO quality indicators

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive updated information on cervical cancer surgical treatment in Europe is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate baseline characteristics of women with early cervical cancer and to analyze the outcomes of the ESGO quality indicators after radical hysterectomy in the SUCCOR database.

METHODS

The SUCCOR database consisted of 1272 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) between January 2013 and December 2014. After exclusion criteria, the final sample included 1156 patients. This study first described the clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up variables of this population and then analyzed the outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) after radical hysterectomy. Surgical-related ESGO quality indicators were assessed and the accomplishment of the stated recommendations was verified.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 47.1 years (SD 10.8), with a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m2 (SD 4.9). A total of 423 (36.6%) patients had a previous cone biopsy. Tumor size (clinical examination) <2 cm was observed in 667 (57.7%) patients. The most frequent histology type was squamous carcinoma (794 (68.7%) patients), and positive lymph nodes were found in 143 (12.4%) patients. A total of 633 (54.8%) patients were operated by open abdominal surgery. Intra-operative complications occurred in 108 (9.3%) patients, and post-operative complications during the first month occurred in 249 (21.5%) patients, with bladder dysfunction as the most frequent event (119 (10.3%) patients). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication occurred in 56 (4.8%) patients. A total of 510 (44.1%) patients received adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 58 months (range 0-84), the 5-year disease-free survival was 88.3%, and the overall survival was 94.9%. In our population, 10 of the 11 surgical-related quality indicators currently recommended by ESGO were fully fulfilled 5 years before its implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this European cohort, the rate of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy is higher than for most similar patients reported in the literature. The majority of centers were already following the European recommendations even 5 years prior to the ESGO quality indicator implementations.

Machine Learning Models to Predict Survival Outcomes According to the Surgical Approach of Primary Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Early Cervical Cancer

Simple Summary

An increased risk of relapse and death from minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been reported in some patients with early cervical cancer. Thus, the development of an intuitive and precise decision-aid tool, which estimates recurrence and mortality rates by surgical approach, is necessary. To develop models predicting survival outcomes according to the surgical approach, we collected clinicopathologic and survival data of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB cervical cancer who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Using only variables that could be obtained preoperatively, we developed various models predicting the probability of 5-year progression-free survival and overall survival. Among them, hybrid ensemble models, combined with logistic regression and multiple machine learning models, achieved the best predictive performance. The developed models are expected to help physicians’ and patients’ decision making related to the surgical approach for primary radical hysterectomy.

Abstract

We purposed to develop machine learning models predicting survival outcomes according to the surgical approach for radical hysterectomy (RH) in early cervical cancer. In total, 1056 patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB cervical cancer who underwent primary type C RH by either open or laparoscopic surgery were included in this multicenter retrospective study. The whole dataset consisting of patients’ clinicopathologic data was split into training and test sets with a 4:1 ratio. Using the training set, we developed models predicting the probability of 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with tenfold cross validation. The developed models were validated in the test set. In terms of predictive performance, we measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values. The logistic regression models comprised of preoperative variables yielded AUCs of 0.679 and 0.715 for predicting 5-year PFS and OS rates, respectively. Combining both logistic regression and multiple machine learning models, we constructed hybrid ensemble models, and these models showed much improved predictive performance, with 0.741 and 0.759 AUCs for predicting 5-year PFS and OS rates, respectively. We successfully developed models predicting disease recurrence and mortality after primary RH in patients with early cervical cancer. As the predicted value is calculated based on the preoperative factors, such as the surgical approach, these ensemble models would be useful for making decisions when choosing between open or laparoscopic RH.

Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm who underwent open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web-of-Science databases were queried from inception to January 2021 (PROSPERO CRD 42020207971). Observational studies reporting progression-free survival and/or overall survival for patients who had open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm were selected. Level of statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic. A random-effects model was used to compare progression and overall survival between the two groups and HR with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the Der Simonian and Laird approach. Risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included encompassing 4935 patients. Of these, 2394 (48.5%) patients had minimally invasive and 2541 (51.5%) patients had open radical hysterectomy; respectively. Patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy had worse progression-free survival than those who had open surgery (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20, 2.36, I2 26%). Based on five studies, patients who had minimally invasive (n=1808) hysterectomy had a trend towards worse overall survival than those who had open surgery (n=1853) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68, I2 15%).

CONCLUSION

Based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies that control for confounders, for patients with cervical cancer and tumor size <2 cm, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival than laparotomy.

Minimally invasive surgery and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare risk of recurrence and death related to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.

METHODS

All relevant literatures in databases were retrieved from the built time of databases to October 2020. Observational studies comparing MIS and ARH in early-stage CC patients were involved. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, including studies with a score of at least 6. Main outcomes involved overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were involved, including 14 894 patients, among which 7213 (48.6%) underwent MIS. The OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.43) and DFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07-1.42) of patients undergoing MIS was obviously shortened compared with those of patients undergoing ARH. Subgroup analysis revealed that OS (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.74) and DFS (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.74) of patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter were significantly reduced by MIS.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and DFS after MIS for early-stage CC treatment were worse than those after ARH, especially for patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter.

Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis

Objective

To compare the survival and recurrence outcomes between open and laparoscopic radically hysterectomy (RH) for stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer based on Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018.

Methods

Data of 1,373 early cervical cancer patients undergoing open or laparoscopic radically hysterectomy at ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW) was used to balance the covariates between the two groups.

Results

A total of 705 cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2009 stage IA2-IIA2 were finally enrolled in this study. After IPTW adjustment, the OS (HR = 2.095, 95% CI: 1.233-3.562, P = 0.006) and PFS (HR = 1.950, 95%CI: 1.194-3.184, P = 0.008) rates were significantly higher in the open RH (ORH) group compared with the laparoscopic RH (LRH) group. Then after re-staging according to the FIGO 2018 staging system, 561 patients still belonged to stage IA2-IIA2, 144 patients were upgraded to stage IIIC1p-IIIC2p. The ORH group had a significantly superior OS (HR = 1.977, 95%CI: 1.077-3.626, P = 0.028) and PFS (HR = 1.811, 95%CI: 1.046-3.134, P = 0.034) compared with the LRH group after PS-IPTW analysis. Furthermore, in patients with no high and intermediate risks, difference of the OS (HR = 1.386, 95%CI: 0.287-6.69, P = 0.684) and PFS (HR = 1.524, 95%CI: 0.363-6.396, P = 0.565) rates between the two groups were with no statistical meaning.

Conclusions

Outcomes of this retrospective cohort study were in compliance with indications for ORH recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines Version 1, 2021. However, LRH showed non-inferiority for patients with no prognostic risk factors compared with ORH.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Results in Higher Recurrence Rate Versus Open Abdominal Surgery for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients With Tumor Size Less Than 2 Centimeter: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

Objective

To compare the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer lesion less than 2 cm.

Methods

Patients diagnosed FIGO (2009) stage IB1 (tumor diameter <2 cm) and underwent radical hysterectomy in our hospital between March 2008 and November 2018 were studied. A propensity-matched comparison (1:2) was conducted to minimize selection biases. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier model, along with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.

Results

A total of 261 patients were enrolled in this study after propensity-matching, with 174 in the open group and 87 in the laparoscopic group. Disease relapsed in seven patients in laparoscopy group, and the recurrence rate was 8.0% (7/87). There were eight patients underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy experienced recurrence, and the recurrence rate was 4.6% (8/174). The multivariate analysis model revealed that laparoscopic operation was associated with higher risk of recurrence than abdominal radical hysterectomy (HR, 3.789; 95% CI, 1.143–12.559; p = 0.029). There were five patients or 2.9% (5/174) died in open surgery group and the corresponding percentage in laparoscopy group was 2.3% (2/87). No difference was found in OS between the two groups (HR, 1.823; 95% CI, 0.2673–12.44; log-rank p = 0.5398). All the recurrence occurred within two years after operation in the laparoscopy group, among which pelvic recurrence (85.7%) was dominant.

Conclusion

Traditional laparotomy radical hysterectomy has a lower recurrence rate when compared with laparoscopic operation in those cervical cancer patients with a foci diameter less than 2 cm. However, no detrimental effect on survival was found in minimal invasive operation group. Further multi-center prospective trials are needed to confirm our results on a large scale.

Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), with a focus on recurrence patterns, tumor sizes, and conization.

METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective study consisted of stage IA1-IB1 (FIGO 2009) squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2000 and 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 582 patients included, 353 (60.7%) underwent ARH, and 229 (39.3%) MIRH. The median follow-up was 14.4 years in the ARH group and 6.1 years in the MIRH group (p < 0.0001). Among the 96 stage IA patients, only 3 (3.1%) experienced recurrence. Among stage IB1 patients, the risk of recurrence, after adjusting for standard prognostic variables, was twofold higher in the MIRH group versus the ARH group (HR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.56-4.80), and the relative difference was similar in terms of risk of cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.28-7.20) and overall survival (OS) (HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.21-4.59). In stage IB1 ≤ 2 cm patients without conization MIRH was associated with reduced time to recurrence (TTR) (HR 4.00, 95% CI: 1.67-9.57), CSS (HR 3.71, 95% CI: 1.19-11.58) and OS (HR 3.02, 95% CI: 1.24-7.34). Intraperitoneal combined recurrences accounted for 12 of 30 (40.0%) recurrences in the MIRH group but were not identified after ARH (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH was associated with reduced TTR, CSS and OS versus ARH in stage IB1 CC patients. The risk of peritoneal recurrence was high, even for tumors ≤2 cm without conization.

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

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.

Methods

Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.

Results

30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).

Conclusion

DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy.

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 six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the 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. There were no differences regarding the surgical approach in the rates of positive vaginal margins, deep stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion. Median follow-up was 52.1 months (range, 0.8-201.2) in the laparoscopic group and 52.6 months (range, 0.4-166.6) in the laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a lower rate of disease-free survival compared with the laparotomy group (4-year rate, 88.7% vs 93.0%; HR for recurrence or death from cervical cancer 1.64; 95% CI 1.09-2.46; P=0.02). In sensitivity analyzes, after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy was associated with increased hazards of recurrence or death from cervical cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.57; P=0.01) and death for any cause (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05-4.37; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective multicenter study, laparoscopy was associated with worse disease-free survival, compared to laparotomy.

Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery has replaced open surgery for almost all surgical indications in gynecological practice. Recently, the results of the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) trial questioned the role of minimally invasive surgery for patients affected by early-stage cervical cancer. In the present paper, we discussed the current evidence regarding the adoption of minimally invasive surgery for patients with cervical cancer. We evaluated the current evidence focusing on four interesting features: 1) the impact of tumor volume; 2) reasons explaining worse outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery; 3) methods to reduce the risk of recurrence during minimally invasive surgery; and 4) the effect of minimally invasive surgery in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. At the moment, in the light of current evidence, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy should be offered only in the context of clinical trials. Extensive counseling and appropriate patients' selection are needed. Further prospective evidence is warranted to identify the better approach for cervical cancer patients.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-matching study. The differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the LRH and ARH were compared under the conditions of real-world study and case-control matching (1:1 matching).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the outcomes of LRH (n = 580) and ARH (n = 1653) in 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 80.6% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.421; DFS: 78.6% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.376). After 1:1 matching, there was no difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LRH (n = 554) and ARH (n = 554) (OS: 80.4% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.993; DFS: 79.0% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.695). Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 5-year OS and DFS, and postoperative adjuvant therapy affected patient prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested that there was no difference in LRH (n = 313) and ARH (n = 1092) in 5-year OS or DFS in patients who underwent standard postoperative adjuvant therapy (OS: 83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.992; DFS: 79.0% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.323). After 1:1 pairing, the 5-year OS and DFS in LRH (n = 295) and ARH (n = 295) showed no difference. Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the 5-year OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS

The ethical approval number is NFEC-2017-135, and the clinical research registration number is CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Objective

To quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.

Study Selection

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.

Results

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for early-stage cervical cancer after minimally invasive (MIS) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We identified studies from 1990 to 2020 that included women with stage I or higher cervical cancer treated with primary radical hysterectomy and compared recurrence and/or PFS and overall survival with MIS vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. (The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD4202173600).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We performed random-effects meta-analyses overall and by length of follow-up. Fifty articles on 40 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial that included 22 593 women with cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria. Twenty percent of the studies had <36 months of follow-up, and 24% had more than 60 months of follow-up. The odds of PFS were worse for women undergoing MIS radical hysterectomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.24-1.94; 14 studies). When limited to studies with longer follow-up, the odds of PFS were progressively worse with MIS radical hysterectomy (HR [hazard ratio] 1.48 for >36 months; 95% CI, 1.21-1.82; 10 studies; HR 1.69 for >48 months; 95% CI, 1.26-2.27; 5 studies; and HR 2.020 for >60 months; 95% CI, 1.36-3.001; 3 studies). For overall survival, the odds were not significantly different for MIS vs abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66-1.35; 14 studies) (HR 0.99 for >36 months; 95% CI, 0.66-1.48; 9 studies; HR 1.05 for >48 months; 95% CI, 0.57-1.94; 4 studies; and HR 1.35 for >60 months; 95% CI, 0.73-2.51; 3 studies).

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis of 50 studies, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse PFS than open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The emergence of this finding with longer follow-up highlights the importance of long-term, high-quality studies to guide cancer and surgical treatments.

Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study

Objective

To compare 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 1,484 cervical cancer patients with IB1 and tumor size <2 cm on final pathology, who received ARH (n=899) or LRH (n=585) between January 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into visible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=668, LRH: n=444) and invisible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=231, LRH: n=141) according to tumor type.

Results

LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (93.3% vs. 93.1%, p=0.997; 96.2% vs. 97.5%, p=0.351) in total study population. LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.58–1.58; p=0.871) or OS rate (HR=1.37; 95% CI=0.65–2.89; p=0.409) by multivariable analysis. In the visible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (91.9% vs. 91.9%, p=0.933; 95.0% vs. 96.9%, p=0.276), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS or OS rate (p=0.804, p=0.324). In the invisible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH also showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (97.3% vs. 97.1%, p=0.815; 100% vs. 99.5%, p=0.449), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (p=0.723).

Conclusions

Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, whether the tumor is visible or not, the oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH among cervical cancer patients are comparable. This suggests that LRH may be suitable for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.

Trial Registration

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Identifier: CHiCTR180017778

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19-1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31-1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).

Minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs laparotomy for patients with stage IB (2018 FIGO) cervical cancer.

METHODS

A matched retrospective study of cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS or laparotomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2012 to December 2015 was carried out. Patients were restaged according to the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer, 700 cases with stage IB cervical cancer were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by software SPSS version 22.0, and a total of 426 patients were enrolled and analyzed. Oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing MIS vs laparotomy.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were no statistical differences in other baseline characteristics between MIS and laparotomy, except for age (p = 0.008). In all stage IB patients, MIS group had significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate compared with laparotomy group (5-year DFS rate, 87.5% vs 94.1%, hazard ratio for disease recurrence, 2.403; 95% CI, 1.216-4.744; 5-year OS rate, 92.3% vs 98.1%, hazard ratio for death, 3.719; 95% CI, 1.370-10.093). In stage IB1 patients population, MIS was still associated with worse DFS and OS compared to laparotomy (5-year DFS rate: 89.5% vs 100%, p = 0.012; 5-year OS rate: 93.4% vs 100%, p = 0.043). Even in stage IB1 patients without lymph vascular space invasion, worse oncologic outcome could be observed in MIS group (DFS: p = 0.021; OS: p = 0.076).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggested that laparotomy resulted in better OS and DFS compared with MIS among patients with stage IB cervical cancer. Even in stage IB1 patients without lymph vascular space invasion (2018 FIGO), laparotomy might be still an oncologically safer approach.

Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Survival Outcomes in Intermediate-Risk, Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Analyses Regarding Surgical Approach of Radical Hysterectomy

This study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) on survival outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH). From the cervical cancer cohorts of two tertiary hospitals, patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB-IIA who underwent primary RH between 2010 and 2018 were identified. Patients with intermediate-risk factors that met the Sedlis criteria were included. Survival outcomes were compared between the patients who received adjuvant RT (study group; n = 53) and those who did not receive adjuvant treatment (control group; n = 30). Compared to the control group, the study group showed significantly better recurrence-free survival (RFS; 5-year survival rate, 85.6% vs. 61.0%; p = 0.009). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant RT was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease recurrence (adjusted HR, 0.241; 95% CI, 0.082-0.709; p = 0.010). In a subgroup that underwent open RH (n = 33), adjuvant RT showed a trend toward improved RFS with borderline statistical significance (adjusted HR, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-1.027; p = 0.053). However, in a subgroup of minimally invasive surgery (n = 50), adjuvant RT did not improve RFS. In conclusion, implementation of adjuvant RT significantly reduced the disease recurrence rate in patients with intermediate-risk, stage IB-IIA cervical cancer treated primarily with surgery. Survival benefit from adjuvant RT differed according to the surgical approach.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node dissection followed by open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To propose a treatment algorithm, after the LACC trial, of laparoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy with frozen section, followed by immediate open radical hysterectomy in node-negative cases, for early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected all cases of cervical cancer that were surgically treated between 2019-2020. In all cases, surgery began with laparoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy ± ovarian transposition. Node-negative cases continued with open radical hysterectomy. In node-positive cases, surgery was discontinued, sparing the patient a laparotomy incision.

RESULTS

Nine patients with cervical cancer were referred for surgery. Laparoscopic bilateral lymph node identification was achieved in all. In two cases, sentinel lymph nodes were positive for metastatic cancer and surgery was discontinued. For the other seven, node-negative patients, open radical hysterectomy was completed. Four patients had laparoscopic ovarian transposition. There were no cases where nodes were negative on frozen section but positive on final pathology.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node biopsy before open radical hysterectomy may spare a considerable number of laparotomies on the one hand and bi-modal treatment with surgery and radiation on the other, for node-positive patients. The oncological safety of this approach is yet to be determined.

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter

BACKGROUND

Early stage cervical cancer is prevalent in China and remains a major public health burden in developing countries. We aimed to determine the long term oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of 37 hospitals. All consecutive early stage cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion to IB1, who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy between January 2004 and December 2016, were included. We compared the disease free survival and overall survival of the two approaches in 1:1 case-control matched settings based on prognosis related factors.

RESULTS

We selected 8470 of 46 313 patients. After matching (n=1601/1601), we found that laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly worse 5 year disease free survival (89.5% vs 93.1%, p=0.001; hazard ratio (HR) 1.60, p=0.001), but not 5 year overall survival (94.3% vs 96.0%, HR=1.48, p=0.058). In the subgroup analysis, in patients with a tumor diameter <2 cm (n=739/739), both 5 year disease free survival and overall survival were similar between the laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy groups. However, when tumor diameter was 2-4 cm (n=898/898), laparoscopic surgery was a poor prognosis risk factor for 5 year disease free survival (84.7% vs 90.8%, p=0.001; HR=1.81, p<0.001), but not 5 year overall survival (90.9% vs 93.8%, p=0.077; HR=1.53, p=0.059).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with early cervical cancer, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with significantly poorer long term oncologic outcome, although in patients with tumors <2 cm, the 5 year overall survival and 5 year disease free survival were similar.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the safety of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cervical cancer has been questioned. This study was designed to compare the disease-free survival and overall survival of abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1065 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who had undergone abdominal/laparoscopic radical hysterectomy between January 2013 and December 2016 in seven hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed in all patients. Patients with tumor size ≥2 cm and <2 cm were stratified and analyzed separately. Disease-free survival and overall survival were compared between matched groups. After confirming the normality by the Shapiro-Wilks test, the Mann-Whitney U test and the χ2 test were used for the comparison of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test.

RESULTS

After matching, a total of 812 patients were included in the disease-free survival and overall survival analyses. In the entire cohort, the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group had a significantly shorter disease-free survival (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.73; p=0.048) but not overall survival (HR 1.60, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.88; p=0.12) when compared with the abdominal radical hysterectomy group. In patients with tumor size ≥2 cm, the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group had a significantly shorter disease-free survival (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.55; p=0.032) than the abdominal radical hysterectomy group, whereas no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.90, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.83; p=0.10) was found. Additionally, in patients with tumor size <2 cm, the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy groups had similar disease-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.16; p=0.59) and overall survival (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.13; p=0.53).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with inferior disease-free survival compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in the entire cohort, as well as in patients with tumor size ≥2 cm. For the surgical treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer, priority should be given to open abdominal radical hysterectomy.