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

Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopic, abdominal and gasless laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: trial protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (LAGCC trial)

Background

Radical hysterectomy (RH) is considered a cornerstone in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. However, the debate surrounding the optimal surgical approach, whether minimally invasive or open surgery, remains controversial. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who undergo different surgical approaches.

Methods

This study is designed as a prospective, multicenter, open, parallel, and randomized controlled trial. A total of 500 patients diagnosed with stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2, IB1, or IB2 (2018 FIGO) will be recruited. Recruitment of participants started in November 2020. The participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: conventional laparoscopic RH, gasless laparoscopic RH, or abdominal RH. The primary endpoint of this trial is the 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate. The secondary endpoints will include the 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, 5-year DFS/OS, recurrence rates, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgery-related complications, and impact on quality of life (QoL).

Discussion

We expect this trial to provide compelling and high-quality evidence to guide the selection of the most appropriate surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer.

Clinical trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, identifier ChiCTR2000035515.

The sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulator in isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a pre-clinical study

OBJECTIVE

Traditional uterine manipulator is considered as the main reason for short survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer during minimally invasive surgery. This study aims to assess the sealing effect of magnetic-sealing uterine manipulators (MUMs) in isolated uteruses.

METHODS

The study was performed on isolated uterus from patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent open abdominal radical hysterectomy between November 2019 to April 2021. Right-angle forceps closure tests (groups 1 and 3) were defined as control tests. One experimental MUM closure test (group 2) and 2 control tests were respectively carried out in each of the isolated uterus. DNA ploidy analysis system was used to observe exfoliated cells. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the sealing effect of MUM.

RESULTS

We identified 36 patients. No regional node metastasis was discovered and only one tumor was larger than 4.0 cm in diameter. The mean of exfoliated tumor cells in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 1, 1, and 2, respectively. There was no significant difference in the quantity of exfoliated cells between groups 1 and 3 (p=0.476), so the results of the 2 groups were merged. Subsequently, a significant difference was observed between combined right-angle forceps closure tests and MUM closure tests (p=0.022).

CONCLUSION

The sealing effect of MUM was better than that of right-angle forceps. MUM can effectively seal cervical cancer cells in the cup cover, avoiding the dissemination of tumor cells.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register Identifier: ChiCTR1900026012.

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.

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.

Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study

Objective

To compare the 3-year oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer.

Methods

Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in the China database, patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IB2 cervical cancer disease who underwent RRH and ARH from 2004 to 2018 were included. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to compare the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate between patients receiving RRH and those receiving ARH. The Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching were used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival.

Results

A total of 1,137 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study, including the RRH group (n = 468) and the ARH group (n = 669). The median follow-up time was 45 months (RRH group vs. ARH group: 24 vs. 60 months). Among the overall study population, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS and DFS between the RRH group and the ARH group (OS: 95.8% vs. 97.6% p = 0.244). The Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.394, 95% CI: 0.552–3.523, p = 0.482). However, RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 1.985, 95% CI: 1.078–3.655 p = 0.028). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS between the RRH group and the ARH group (96.6% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.470); however, the 3-year DFS of the RRH group was lower than that of the ARH group (91.0% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.025). The Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.622, 95% CI: 0.449–5.860 p = 0.461), but RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 2.498, 95% CI: 1.123–5.557 p = 0.025).

Conclusion

Among patients with stage I A1 (LVSI +)-I B2 cervical cancer based on the FIGO 2018 staging system, RRH has a lower 3-year DFS than ARH, suggesting that RRH may not be suitable for early cervical cancer patients.

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.

Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy

Objective

To evaluate association of preoperative cone biopsy with the probability of recurrent disease after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with LVSI to IIA2 and squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype were included. Patients were analyzed for general characteristics and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

In total, of 480 patients with cervical cancer, 183 patients met the inclusion criteria (117 with laparoscopic and 66 with open surgery). The median tumor diameter was 25.0 mm (range 4.6–70.0 mm) with 66 (36.2%) patients having tumors smaller than 2 cm. During median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 0–166.0 months), the RFS for the laparoscopic cohort was 93.2% and 87.5% at 3 and 4.5 years, and 79.3% for the open cohort after 3 and 4.5 years, respectively. In total, 17 (9.3%) patients developed recurrent disease, 9 (7.3%) after laparoscopic, and 8 (12.1%) after open surgery. No preoperative cone biopsy (OR 9.60, 95% CI 2.14–43.09) as well as tumor diameter > 2 cm (OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.20–24.25) were significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence. In multivariate analysis, only missing preoperative cone biopsy was significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR 5.90, 95% CI 1.11–31.29)

Conclusion

There appears to be a subgroup of patients (preoperative cone biopsy, tumor diameter < 2 cm) with excellent survival and low risk for recurrence after radical hysterectomy which might benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.

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.

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.