Survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: A single-center, one surgeon, retrospective study

Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study

The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of 3 different radical hysterectomy (RH) types, namely total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH), and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer. We retrospectively identified a cohort of patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer were included and were classified into TARH, TLRH, and LARVH treatment groups. Survival outcomes were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the independent association of RH technique with outcome. 194 patients were included in this study: 79 patients in the TARH group, 55 in the TLRH group, and 60 in the LARVH group. No significant differences were found in clinicopathological characteristics between the 3 RH groups. On comparing survival outcomes with TARH, both TLRH and LARVH showed no significant difference in terms of 5-year overall survival (TARH vs TLRH, P = .121 and TARH vs LARVH, P = .436). Conversely, compared to the TARH group, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse in the TLRH group (P = .034) but not in the LARVH group (P = .288). Multivariate analysis showed that TLRH surgical approach (hazard ratio, 3.232; 95% confidence interval, 1.238-8.438; P = .017) was an independent prognostic factor for PFS in patients with IB2 cervical cancer. Our study suggests that in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer, among the minimally invasive RH approaches, TLRH and LARVH, only TLRH approach was associated with worse PFS when compared with the TARH approach.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I2 = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I2 = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for Minimal Invasive Surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

19 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3196 patiets were included for the review. Meta-analysis of 1988 0f them highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.8 [95% CI 0.55-1.16] p = 0.24; I² = 0%; p = 0.98). OS was feasible only for 4 studies (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.23-3.02] p = 0.79; I² = 0 p = 0.44). Sub-analysis for tumor with a maximum diameter greater than 2 cm was performed. Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

Application of Da Vinci robotic surgery system in cervical cancer: A single institution experience of 557 cases

OBJECTIVE

Conflicting data have been published regarding the oncologic appropriateness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of cervical cancer. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether our experience in the treatment of early cervical cancer using a robotic surgical approach was safe and oncologically effective.

METHODS

The data of 557 patients with cervical cancer treated by robotic surgery were retrospectively collected, including the perioperative and survival outcomes. Tumor stage was based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2009). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Of the 557 patients, 196 (35.2%) patients were stage IA1 to IB1, and 304 (54.6%) patients were stage IB2 to I1A2. Also included were 57 (10.2%) patients with either recurrent or persistent disease following concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Two patients (0.4%) experienced severe intraoperative complications and 11 patients (2.0%) developed postoperative complications. A stratified analysis of survival was conducted in 91 patients who met a follow-up time of 3-year or more. The median follow-up time was 49 (range, 6-57) months. Both the 3-year DFS and OS of early-stage (stage IA1 to IB1) cervical cancer were 97.6%. For patients with locally advanced (stage IB2 to IIA2) disease, DFS and OS were 88.1% and 90.5%, respectively. The patients with recurrent or persistent disease had DFS and OS of 62.5%.

CONCLUSION

Our study results demonstrated that the robotic surgical approach could achieve satisfying therapeutic outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer, with a low complication rate. For advanced cervical cancer patients with recurrent or persistent disease following concurrent chemoradiotherapy, robotic surgery undertaken as supplementary therapy may improve prognosis. However, there remains a need for additional prospective data reporting long-term survival of cervical cancer patients treated with a robotic surgical approach.