Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer

Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node: Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Guided Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to compare the number of lymph nodes removed during indocyanine green (ICG)-guided laparoscopic/robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy with standard systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective comparative study (Clinical Trial ID: NCT04246580; updated on 31 January 2023). Women affected by EC and CC who underwent laparoscopic/robotic systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy, with (cases) or without (controls) the use of ICG tracer injection within the uterine cervix, were included in the study.

RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous for age (p = 0.08), Body Mass Index, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages (p = 0.41 for EC; p = 0.17 for CC), median estimated blood loss (p = 0.76), median operative time (p = 0.59), and perioperative complications (p = 0.66). Nevertheless, the number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was significantly higher (p = 0.005) in the ICG group (n = 18) compared with controls (n = 16).

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate and precise dissection achieved with the use of the ICG-guided procedure was associated with a higher number of lymph nodes removed in the case of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy for EC and CC.

Oncological Results of Laparoscopically Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Should We Really Abandon Minimally Invasive Surgery?

Simple Summary

Some recently published studies in early-stage cervical cancer patients have shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, might offer lower survival rates than classic open surgery. We evaluated the oncological results of a series of patients treated by laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), an infrequently used MIS technique. We included 115 patients with early-stage cervical cancer (IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, IB1, and IIA < 2 cm; International Federation of Gynecology (FIGO), 2008). The 3- and 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 96.7% and 93.5%, respectively, and the overall survival was 97.8% and 94.8%, respectively. These survival data are comparable with those reported with the open radical hysterectomy but presented the advantages of MIS. LARVH offers excellent disease control in women with early-stage cervical cancer and can be considered as an adequate MIS alternative to open radical hysterectomy.

Abstract

Background: Recent evidence indicates that some minimally invasive surgery approaches, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy, offer lower survival rates to patients with early-stage cervical cancer than open radical hysterectomy. We evaluated the oncological results of a different minimally invasive surgery approach, that of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) in this setting. Methods: From January 2001 to December 2018, patients with early-stage cervical cancer were treated by LARVH. Colpotomy and initial closure of the vagina were performed following the Schauta operation, avoiding manipulation of the tumor. Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed in all cases. Women treated between 2001 and 2011 also underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy. Results: There were 115 patients included. Intraoperative complications occurred in nine patients (7.8%). After a median follow-up of 87.8 months (range 1–216), seven women (6%) presented recurrence. Four women died (mortality rate 3.4%). The 3- and 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 96.7% and 93.5%, respectively, and the overall survival was 97.8% and 94.8%, respectively. Conclusion: LARVH offers excellent disease-free and overall survival in women with early-stage cervical cancer and can be considered as an adequate minimally invasive surgery alternative to open radical hysterectomy.

Urodynamic assessment of bladder storage function after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

After radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, the most common complication is lower urinary tract symptoms. Post-operatively, bladder capacity can alter bladder function for a prolonged period. This study aimed to identify factors affecting bladder storage function.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted. Information of patients with stages IA2 to IIB cervical cancer with urodynamic study results were retrospectively collected from nine hospitals between June 2013 and June 2018 according to the inclusion criteria. Demographic, surgical, and oncological data were collected. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify clinical factors associated with bladder storage function.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three patients with cervical cancer had urodynamic testing post-operatively. Ninety-five (46.8%) patients were diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The incidence of low bladder compliance (LBC) was 23.2%. Twenty-seven (13.3%) patients showed detrusor overactivity (DO). Fifty-seven patients (28.1%) presented with a decreased maximum cystometric capacity (DMCC). The probability of composite bladder storage dysfunction was 68.0%. Multivariate analysis confirmed that laparoscopy represents a protective factor for SUI with an odds ratio of 0.498 (P = 0.034). Patients who underwent a nerve-sparing procedure were less odds to experience SUI (P = 0.014). A significant positive correlation between LBC and DO was observed (P < 0.001). A greater length of the resected vagina and chemoradiotherapy were common risk factors for LBC and DO, while radiotherapy exerted a stronger effect than chemotherapy. Additionally, patients who received chemoradiotherapy frequently developed a DMCC. The follow-up time was not correlated with bladder storage function.

CONCLUSION

A nerve-sparing procedure without longer resected vagina is recommended for protecting the bladder storage function.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

National Cancer Grid of India Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cervical Cancer

Standard guidelines for the management of early and locally advanced cervical cancer are available from various academic consortiums nationally and internationally. However, implementing standard-of-care treatment poses unique challenges within low- and middle-income countries, such as India, where diverse clinical care practices may exist. The National Cancer Grid, a consortium of 108 institutions in India, aims to homogenize care for patients with cervical cancer by achieving consensus on not only imaging and management, but also in addressing potential solutions to prevalent challenges that affect the homogenous implementation of standard-of-care treatment. These guidelines therefore represent a consensus statement of the National Cancer Grid gynecologic cancer expert group and will assist in homogenization of the therapeutic management of patients with cervical cancer in India.

Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and survival outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients treated by laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

Since March 2008 to July 2012, the patients with early stage cervical cancer undergoing LARVH or ARH in Beijing hospital have been entered into this study. Statistical analysis used Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) and significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULT

Forty-two patients were included in LARVH group and 35 patients in ARH group. Both groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), histological diagnosis, and stage. There were no differences in operative time, vaginal length, and postoperative complications, but blood loss, rate of transfusion, length of catheterized, and length of hospital stay were significantly less in LARVH. Number of lymph node retrieved was less than ARH. No differences were seen regarding recurrence rate, length of disease free survival, overall survival, and mortality rate after a median follow up of 58.5 and 48.5 months.

CONCLUSION

LARVH is a suitable alternative to ARH for early-stage cervical cancer, which shows less blood loss, shorter catheterized and hospital stay, and similar survival outcomes.

Safety and Cost Considerations during the Introduction Period of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy

Objective. To compare the safety, efficacy, and direct cost during the introduction of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy within an enhanced recovery pathway. Methods. A 1 : 1 single centre retrospective case control study of 36 propensity matched pairs of patients receiving open or laparoscopic surgery for early cervical cancer. Results. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the two cohorts. Open surgery cohort had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (189 versus 934 mL) and longer postoperative hospital stay (2.3 versus 4.1 days). Although no significant difference in the intraoperative or postoperative complications was found more urinary tract injuries were recorded in the laparoscopic cohort. Laparoscopic surgery had significantly longer duration (206 versus 159 minutes), lower lymph node harvest (12.6 versus 16.9), and slower bladder function recovery. The median direct hospital cost was £4850 for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and £4400 for open surgery. Conclusions. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy can be safely introduced in an enhanced recovery environment without significant increase in perioperative morbidity. The 10% higher direct hospital cost is not statistically significant and is expected to even out when indirect costs are included.

Surgical Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has been a cornerstone in the management of this malignancy for more than 100 years. Today, for early-stage and low-risk cervical cancer, surgery is still considered the gold standard. If the preoperative assessment of the tumor reveals a situation prompting postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy, the latter should be planned as the primary treatment option, being preceded by staging laparoscopy including pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. As an alternative to the open approach, the definitive surgical treatment should be either performed laparoscopically, or be laparoscopic-assisted, or laparoscopically robotic-assisted.

The Role of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term survival outcomes and patterns of recurrence of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

The medical records of 293 patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical adenocarcinomas who underwent radical hysterectomy were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 186 patients underwent LRH and 107 underwent ORH. There was no difference between the two surgery groups in clinicopathologic characteristics. There were no differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the LRH and ORH groups (88.7 vs. 84.1 %, P = 0.725; and 93.0 vs. 86.9 %, P = 0.735) for univariate analysis and multivariate analysis after adjusting for other significant prognostic factors. There was no difference in the patterns of recurrence between the two surgery groups (P = 0.220). The median time interval between surgery and the first recurrence were 25 months (range, 3-100 months) for LRH group and 14 months (range, 3-128 months) for ORH group (P = 0.230). The LRH group showed significantly fewer postoperative complications (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), faster bowel movement recovery (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower rate of wound dehiscence, ileus, lymphedema, infected lymphocele, and pelvic abscess (P = 0.004, 0.011, 0.017, and 0.040, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has comparable survival outcomes with ORH and did not affect the pattern of recurrence in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. The surgical outcomes were more favorable than ORH.

Management and Care of Women With Invasive Cervical Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Resource-Stratified Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose

To provide evidence-based, resource-stratified global recommendations to clinicians and policymakers on the management and palliative care of women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer.

Methods

ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of cancer control, medical and radiation oncology, health economic, obstetric and gynecologic, and palliative care experts to produce recommendations reflecting resource-tiered settings. A systematic review of literature from 1966 to 2015 failed to yield sufficiently strong quality evidence to support basic- and limited-resource setting recommendations; a formal consensus-based process was used to develop recommendations. A modified ADAPTE process was also used to adapt recommendations from existing guidelines.

Results

Five existing sets of guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Eight systematic reviews, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided indirect evidence to inform the consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or greater.

Recommendations

Clinicians and planners should strive to provide access to the most effective evidence-based antitumor and palliative care interventions. If a woman cannot access these within her own or neighboring country or region, she may need to be treated with lower-tier modalities, depending on capacity and resources for surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and supportive and palliative care. For women with early-stage cervical cancer in basic settings, cone biopsy or extrafascial hysterectomy may be performed. Fertility-sparing procedures or modified radical or radical hysterectomy may be additional options in nonbasic settings. Combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (including brachytherapy) should be used for women with stage IB to IVA disease, depending on available resources. Pain control is a vital component of palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/rs-cervical-cancer-treatment-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki. It is the view of ASCO that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Evolution of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer along the last two decades: single institution experience

Background:

The radical hysterectomy (RH) surgical technique has improved along the years. It is used for the treatment of cervical cancer, endometrial cancer when affecting the cervix, and upper vaginal carcinomas. Our aim was to describe the historical evolution of the technique after the introduction of laparoscopy at our institution.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent RH, grouped in three periods according to the year of surgery: 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2013. Patients?characteristics, pathologic details, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared throughout the time periods.

Results:

A total of 102 cases of RH were performed at our center during the study period. Among all data collected, the presence of necrosis, age, number of lymph nodes, surgery route, operating time, hospital stay, blood loss and transfusion requirement were statistically significant different among groups. Conversion to laparotomy rate was 19% for the second period compared to the absence of cases in the last one. No significant differences (P=0.124) were observed in the adjuvant treatment received among the three different groups. At the time of the last contact the patients free of disease were 12 (85.7%), 53 (91.3%) and 26 (86.6%) respectively (P=0.406). Regarding the disease-free interval, we found significant better outcomes in the group of laparotomy compared to laparoscopy (P=0.015).

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic RH is an acceptable surgery with advantages like magnified vision of the operation抯 field, lower surgical complications, shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption to daily activities.

Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Objective: Studies comparing the prognostic results between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in cervical cancer reported contradictory results. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and safety roles of LRH by pooling studies in a meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: Original articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The survival results (5-year disease-free survival [DFS], 5-year overall survival [OS], and recurrence rate [RR]), safety parameters (intra-, peri-, and postoperative complication rates and postoperative bowel or bladder recovery days), efficiency parameters (pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed), and other parameters (operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital of stay) between the two approaches were reviewed.

Results: For the 2922 cases identified, DFS, OS, and RR did not differ in balanced prognostic factors, including lymph node metastasis, Stage IIB or above, non–squamous cancer histology, grade G3, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size ≥4 cm, and positive parametrial and vaginal margin rates. Meanwhile, LRH was associated with higher complication rates and a shorter time to the recovery of bowel or bladder function than for ARH. The number of removed pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes did not significantly differ. Other parameters showed LRH was associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. The survival and prognostic results did not differ in balanced prognostic factors.

Conclusions: LRH is safe and has lower operative complication rates than ARH.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.

Current and Future Status of Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology

Laparoscopy is playing an increasingly important role in gynecologic oncology. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery for oncology patients and the quality of this treatment are well documented. Outcomes and quality of minimally invasive surgical procedures to treat cervical cancer were evaluated based on retrospective and case-control studies; outcomes and quality after minimally invasive treatment für early-stage low-risk endometrial cancer were also assessed in prospective randomized studies. If indicated, laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is both technically feasible and oncologically safe. Adipose patients in particular benefit from minimally invasive procedures, where feasible. The potential role of laparoscopy in neoadjuvant therapy for ovarian cancer and in surgery for early-stage ovarian carcinoma is still controversially discussed and is currently being assessed in further studies. Using a minimally invasive approach in gynecologic oncology procedures demands strict adherence to oncological principles and requires considerable surgical skill.