Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study

Impact of peritoneal vaginoplasty combined with radical hysterectomy on the quality of sexual life for patients with early-stage cervical cancer: trial protocol for a multi-center superiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy (RH) is commonly used to treat early-stage cervical cancer in women of childbearing age and sexual dysfunction due to postoperative vaginal shortening is a major concern. The impact of intraoperative vaginoplasty on prognosis and quality of sexual life in patients with early-stage cervical cancer remains controversial and lacks high-level evidence. However, there are few reports on vaginoplasty after RH to lengthen vagina in patients. This prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial aims to explore the impact of peritoneal vaginoplasty with or without ovarian transposition after laparoscopic RH on sexual dysfunction in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Eligible patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive peritoneal vaginoplasty or not. The primary evaluation indicators are female sexual function index (FSFI) and male sexual satisfaction scale. The secondary evaluation indicators include EORTC QLQ-CX24, 2-year overall survival (OS), 5-year OS, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), 5-year PFS and surgery-related complications. The trial will enroll 368 patients from 6 hospitals in China over a 3-year period and follow up for 5 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000040610.

Evaluating equity of access and predictors of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancer from 2000 to 2017 in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess the uptake of minimally invasive hysterectomy among patients with endometrial and cervical cancer in Ontario, Canada, and assess the equity of access to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by evaluating associations with patient, disease, institutional, and provider factors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective population-based cohort study of hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancer in Ontario (2000-2017). Surgical approach, clinicopathologic, sociodemographic, institutional, and provider factors were identified through administrative databases. Fisher's exact, χ2 , Wilcoxon rank sum, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to explore factors associated with MIS.

RESULTS

A total of 27 652 patients were included. In total, 6199/24 264 (26%) endometrial and 842/3388 (25%) cervical cancer patients received MIS. The proportion of MIS to open surgeries increased from <0.1% in 2000 to over 55% in 2017 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31, confidence interval [CI] = 1.28-1.34). Low-income quintile, rurality, low hospital volume, nonacademic hospital, nongynecologic oncology surgeon, and earlier year of surgeon graduation were associated with reduced odds of MIS (OR < 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of MIS hysterectomy increased steadily over the time period. Receipt of MIS is dependent upon multiple social determinants, provider variables, and systems factors. These disparities raise concern for health equity in Ontario and have significant implications for health systems planning and resource allocation.

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.

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.

Survival after laparoscopic radical surgery for stage IA-IIB cervical cancer: 1316 consecutive cases from a national laparoscopic training center in China

BACKGROUND

To investigate the survival of cervical cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in a minimally invasive gynecology center.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients undergoing first LRH for cervical cancer from May 2008 to December 2017 at a national laparoscopic training center was retrospectively analyzed. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 1316 women with FIGO (2009) stage IA-IIB cervical cancer received LRH. Among them, 1114 (84.7%) were followed up for 3 months or longer; the median follow-up period was 48 months (range 3-144 months). In patients with stage IA, IB1 (≤ 2 cm), IB1 (> 2 cm), IB2, IIA1 and IIA2-IIB tumors, the 4-year PFS rates were 98.6, 94.5, 87.4, 65.6, 80.0 and 67.4%, respectively, and the 4-year OS rates were 98.6, 96.8, 91.1, 77.4, 85.6 and 76.2%, respectively. The 4-year PFS and OS were as high as 96.2 and 97.5%, respectively, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of 2 cm or smaller in diameter. A stable high 4-year OS and PFS was achieved after completing 100 LRHs. In patients operated on by the same surgeon, an improvement in survival was observed after 40 LRHs.

CONCLUSION

Favorable oncologic outcomes can be achieved in patients with IA-IB1 cervical cancer after LRH in a center with a high surgery volume.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of Quality Control Program in Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

Regular assessments of clinical performance in gynecologic cancer surgery is important for the safety of patients. We evaluated the effects of quality control (QC) program on the treatment pattern and clinical outcomes of early cervical cancer.

METHODS

Medical records of cervical cancer patients who received operation in our institution from January 2007 to December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were divided into 2 groups, before and after the initiation of QC program, group 1 (2007-2013) and group 2 (2014-2018), based on the operation date. Two groups were compared in clinicopathologic variables, surgical methods, operative details, adjuvant treatments, recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 305 cervical cancer patients were included in the analysis, 210 in group 1 and 95 in group 2. In group 2, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was more frequently performed (60.0% vs. 76.8%, P = 0.004), especially in earlier stages (stage IA, 72.6% vs. 100.0%; stage IB, 52.2% vs. 69.5%). However, the median tumor size treated by MIS was decreased in stage IB (20 mm vs. 17 mm, P = 0.015). Frequency of adjuvant treatment was also reduced in stage IB (56.5% vs. 37.3%, P = 0.016). Recurrence within 3 years, 3-year disease free survival and overall survival did not show significant difference; however, 3-year recurrence after MIS was significantly reduced in stage IB.

CONCLUSION

QC program enforced stricter patient selection criteria for MIS and positively affected clinical outcomes in cervical cancer patients who underwent surgery. Systemic monitoring should be considered for patient safety.

Comparison of survival outcomes with or without Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer in China from 2004 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Current opinions on whether surgical patients with cervical cancer should undergo para-aortic lymphadenectomy at the same time are inconsistent. The present study examined differences in survival outcomes with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the survival outcomes of 8802 stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients (FIGO 2009) who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy + pelvic lymphadenectomy (n = 8445) or abdominal radical hysterectomy + pelvic lymphadenectomy + para-aortic lymphadenectomy (n = 357) from 37 hospitals in mainland China.

RESULTS

Among the 8802 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer, 1618 (18.38%) patients had postoperative pelvic lymph node metastases, and 37 (10.36%) patients had para-aortic lymph node metastasis. When pelvic lymph nodes had metastases, the para-aortic lymph node simultaneous metastasis rate was 30.00% (36/120). The risk of isolated para-aortic lymph node metastasis was 0.42% (1/237). There were no significant differences in the survival outcomes between the para-aortic lymph node unresected and resected groups. No differences in the survival outcomes were found before or after matching between the two groups regardless of pelvic lymph node negativity/positivity.

CONCLUSION

Para-aortic lymphadenectomy did not improve 5-year survival outcomes in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Therefore, when pelvic lymph node metastasis is negative, the risk of isolated para-aortic lymph node metastasis is very low, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is not recommended. When pelvic lymph node metastasis is positive, para-aortic lymphadenectomy should be carefully selected because of the high risk of this procedure.

Cohort Profile: Chinese Cervical Cancer Clinical Study

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer worldwide, but its incidence varies greatly in different countries. Regardless of incidence or mortality, the burden of cervical cancer in China accounts for approximately 18% of the global burden. The Chinese Cervical Cancer Clinical Study is a hospital-based multicenter open cohort. The major aims of this study include (i) to explore the associations of therapeutic strategies with complications as well as mid- and long-term clinical outcomes; (ii) to widely assess the factors which may have an influence on the prognosis of cervical cancer and then guide the treatment options, and to estimate prognosis using a prediction model for precise post-treatment care and follow-up; (iii) to develop a knowledge base of cervical clinical auxiliary diagnosis and prognosis prediction using artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches; and (iv) to roughly map the burden of cervical cancer in different districts and monitoring the trend in incidence of cervical cancer to potentially inform prevention and control strategies. Patients eligible for inclusion were those diagnosed with cervical cancer, whether during an outpatient visit or hospital admission, at 47 different types of medical institutions in 19 cities of 11 provinces across mainland China between 2004 and 2018. In a total, 63 926 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in the cohort. Since the project inception, a large number of standardized variables have been collected, including epidemiological characteristics, cervical cancer-related symptoms, physical examination results, laboratory testing results, imaging reports, tumor biomarkers, tumor staging, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, co-infections, treatment and short-term complications. Follow-up was performed at least once every 6 months within the first 5 years after receiving treatment and then annually thereafter. At present, we are developing a cervical cancer imaging database containing Dicom files with data of computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging examination. Additionally, we are also collecting original pathological specimens of patients with cervical cancer. Potential collaborators are welcomed to contact the corresponding authors, and anyone can submit at least one specific study proposal describing the background, objectives and methods of the study.

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.

Cervical Cancer Surgery: Current State of Affairs

Cervical cancer surgery has a history of more than 100-years whereby it has transitioned from the open approach to minimally invasive surgery (MIS). From the era of clinical exploration and practice, minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons have never ceased to explore new frontiers in the field of gynecologic surgery. MIS has fewer postoperative complications, including reduction of treatment-related morbidity and length of hospital stay than laparotomy; this forms the mainstay of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, in November 2018, the New England Journal of Medicine had published two clinical studies on cervical cancer surgery (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer [LACC]). Following these publications, laparoscopic surgery for early-stage cervical cancer has come under intense scrutiny and negative perceptions. Many studies began to explore the concept of standardized surgery for early-stage cervical cancer. In this article, we performed a review of the history of cervical cancer surgery, outlined the standardization of cervical cancer surgery, and analyzed the current state of affairs revolving around cervical cancer surgery in the post-LACC era.

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.

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.

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 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).