Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

Surgery Advances in Gynecologic Tumors: The Evolution and Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers in a Tertiary Center

The integration of innovation into routine clinical practice is faced with many challenges. In 2007, we received the mandate to evaluate how the introduction of a robotic program in gynecologic oncology affected patient-centered care by studying its impact on clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization. Here we summarize the history and experience of developing a robotic surgery program for gynecologic cancers over 16 years. Analysis of the data indicates that robotic surgery improved perioperative patient clinical parameters, decreased blood loss, complications, and hospital stay, maintained the oncologic outcome, and is cost-effective, resulting in it becoming the dominant surgical approach in gynecologic oncology in a tertiary cancer care institution.

A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer

A meta-analysis study was executed to measure the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgical management (OSM) on wound infection (WI) in female's cervical cancer (CC). A comprehensive literature study till February 2023 was applied and 1675 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 41 chosen investigations enclosed 10 204 females with CC and were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 4294 of them were utilizing MIS, and 5910 were utilizing OSM. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compute the value of the effect of MIS and OSM on WI in female's CC and by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. The MIS had significantly lower WI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35, p < 0.001) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and postoperative aggregate complications (PACs) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001) in females with CC and compared OSM. However, MIS compared with OSM in females with CC and had no significant difference in pelvic infection and abscess (PIA) (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The MIS had significantly lower WI, and PACs, though, had no significant difference in PIA in females with CC and compared with OSM. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

Robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology: a bibliometric study

We aimed to identify the trends and patterns of robotic surgery research in obstetrics and gynecology since its implementation. We used data from Clarivate's Web of Science platform to identify all articles published on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 838 publications were included in the analysis. Of these, 485 (57.9%) were from North America and 281 (26.0%) from Europe. 788 (94.0%) articles originated in high-income countries and none from low-income countries. The number of publications per year reached a peak of 69 articles in 2014. The subject of 344 (41.1%) of articles was gynecologic oncology, followed by benign gynecology (n = 176, 21.0%) and urogynecology (n = 156, 18.6%). Articles discussing gynecologic oncology had lower representation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (32.0% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.001) compared with high income countries. After 2015 there has been a higher representation of publications from Asia (19.7% vs. 7.7%) and from LMIC (8.4% vs. 2.6%), compared to the preceding years. In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.30 (1.16-1.41)], gynecologic oncology subject [aOR 95% CI 1.73 (1.06-2.81)] and randomized controlled trials [aOR 95% CI 3.67 (1.47-9.16)] were associated with higher number of citations per year. In conclusion, robotic surgery research in obstetrics & gynecology is dominated by research in gynecologic oncology and reached a peak nearly a decade ago. The disparity in the quantity and quality of robotic research between high income countries and LMIC raises concerns regarding the access of the latter to high quality healthcare resources such as robotic surgery.

Surgical margin status in relation to surgical approach in the management of early-stage cervical Cancer: A Canadian cervical Cancer collaborative (4C) study

OBJECTIVE

Surgical margin status in women undergoing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is an important prognostic factor. We sought to determine whether close (<3 mm) and positive surgical margins are associated with surgical approach and survival.

METHODS

This is a national retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Patients with stage IA1/LVSI-Ib2(FIGO 2018) with lesions up to 4 cm at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2019 were included. Surgical approach included robotic/laparoscopic (LRH), abdominal (ARH) or combined laparoscopic-assisted vaginal/vaginal (LVRH) radical hysterectomy. Recurrence free survival(RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

956 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical margins were as follows: negative (87.0%), positive (0.4%) or close <3 mm (6.8%), missing (5.8%). Most patients had squamous histology (46.9%); 34.6% had adenocarcinomas and 11.3% adenosquamous. Most were stage IB (75.1%) and 24.9% were IA. Mode of surgery included: LRH(51.8%), ARH (39.2%), LVRH (8.9%). Predictive factors for close/positive margins included stage, tumour diameter, vaginal involvement and parametrial extension. Surgical approach was not associated with margin status (p = 0.27). Close/positive margins were associated with a higher risk of death on univariate analysis (HR = non calculable for positive and HR = 1.83 for close margins, p = 0.017), but not significant for OS when adjusted for stage, histology, surgical approach and adjuvant treatment. There were 7 recurrences in patients with close margins (10.3%, p = 0.25). 71.5% with positive/close margins received adjuvant treatment. In addition, MIS was associated with a higher risk of death (OR = 2.39, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Surgical approach was not associated to close or positive margins. Close surgical margins were associated with a higher risk of death. MIS was associated with worse survival, suggesting that margin status may not be the driver of worse survival in these cases.

Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer. A systematic literature search up to July 2022 was performed and 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using the minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13-0.30, P < .001), and postoperative complications (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, P < .001) in subjects with cervical cancer compared laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in subjects with cervical cancer had no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.36, P = 0.76). The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection, and postoperative complications however, had no significant difference in intraoperative complications in subjects with cervical cancer compared with laparotomy. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 22 out of 41 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

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.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

The MEDLINE (accessed through Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from inception up to April 2022. Articles published in English were considered. The included studies reported on patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA-IIA squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and/or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix who underwent primary surgery. Studies had to report at least one case of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a recurrence pattern, and only studies comparing recurrence after minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery were considered. Variables of interest were manually extracted into a standardized electronic database. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325068).

RESULTS

The initial search identified 518 articles. After the removal of the duplicate entries from the initial search, two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the remaining 453 articles. Finally, 78 articles were selected for full-text evaluation; 22 articles (a total of 7626 patients) were included in the analysis-one randomized controlled trial and 21 observational retrospective studies. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in 60.9%, and the tumor size was <4 cm in 92.8% of patients. Peritoneal carcinomatosis pattern represented 22.2% of recurrences in the minimally invasive surgery approach versus 8.8% in open surgery, accounting for 15.5% of all recurrences. The meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with open surgery.

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.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare the survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study involving women who received a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, IB1, IB2, or IIA from 2008 to 2016. Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical methodologies.

RESULTS

Oncologic survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Among the 105 cases identified, 58 (55.2%) and 47 (44.8%) women underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy, respectively. Over a median follow-up period of 62 months, women who underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy had a 5-year overall survival rate of 87.9% and 89.4% (p = 0.845) and a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 82.5% and 86.7% (p = 0.624), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For early-stage cervical cancer, patients who underwent MIS radical hysterectomy had survival outcomes that were comparable to those who underwent open surgery at our institute.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

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.

Mandate to evaluate robotic surgery implementation: a 12-year retrospective analysis of impact and future implications

The introduction of robotic surgery in hospitals has raised much debate given the various effects on care, costs, education and medical advancement. Purchasing discussions are often approached with more questions than answers and there is a need for reports that provide a case for whether or not such technologies are advantageous from multiple perspectives, and offer insights into ways such devices can be introduced into a hospital setting. This report provides an evidence-based review of a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital's 12-year experience with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology and delves into the various takeaways and challenges of implementing robotic surgery. Key findings were that robotic surgery significantly reduced complication rates, lengths of hospital stays for patients and overall hospital costs. Key obstacles were large upfront costs and the need for significant leadership and collaboration. Ongoing challenges to evaluating robotics include assessing long-term survival data, making comparisons with concurrently changing hospital conditions and determining how data can be generalized to other departments and institutions.

Robotic radical hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-centre experience from India

To compare the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years and 5 years in patients undergoing treatment for early-stage cervical cancer with either robotic (RRH) or open radical hysterectomy (ORH). This retrospective study compared all patients with stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, IB1, IB2 and II A cervical cancer in accordance with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics staging (FIGO 2009) of cancer of the cervix uteri. Patients who underwent Radical Hysterectomy at our centre from January 2011 till January 2018 were included in the study. One hundred and eighty-nine patients ( ORH = 67, RRH = 122) were included. The median follow-up time was 46.3 months in RRH group and 70.0 months in the ORH group. The 3-year DFS was comparable in both the arms, 91.5% in RRH and 91.6% in ORH. The 5-year DFS was 88.9% and 85.9% in robotic and open approaches, respectively (P = 0.258), hazard ratio (HR) 0.616 (CI = 0.266-1.427). The 3-year overall survival for robotic approach was 93.4% and for open was 95%, whereas 5-year overall survival was 84.7% and 87.4% in robotic and open approaches, respectively (P = 0.813). The median estimated blood loss for robotics was lower (100 ml vs 300 ml, P < 0.001) and median operative time was less (162.5 min vs. 180 min, P = 0.005) in robotics. The patients in RRH cohort had shorter median hospital stay (3.9 days vs. 6.3 days, P < 0.001). Robotic radical hysterectomy had comparable survival outcomes to open radical hysterectomy in cancer cervix. RRH is associated with improved peri-operative surgical outcomes and better resource utilisation.

Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis comprehensively compared intraoperative and postoperative complications between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in the management of cervical cancer. Even though the advantages of laparotomy over MIS in disease-free survival and overall survival for management of gynecological diseases have been cited in the literature, there is a lack of substantial evidence of the advantage of one surgical modality over another, and it is uncertain whether MIS is justifiable in terms of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the studies were abstracted that the outcomes of complications to compare MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification stage IA1-IIB) cervical cancer. The primary outcomes were intraoperative overall complications, as well as postoperative aggregate complications. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications. Two investigators independently performed the screening and data extraction. All articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis finally included 39 non-randomized studies and 1 randomized controlled trial (8 studies were conducted on robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs open radical hysterectomy (ORH), 27 studies were conducted on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) vs ORH, and 5 studies were conducted on all three approaches). Pooled analyses showed that MIS was associated with higher risk of intraoperative overall complications (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.07-1.86, P<0.05) in comparison with ORH. However, compared to ORH, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative aggregate complications (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.34-0.48, P = 0.0143). In terms of individual complications, MIS appeared to have a positive effect in decreasing the complications of transfusion, wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, MIS had a negative effect in increasing the complications of cystotomy, bowel injury, subcutaneous emphysema, and fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that MIS is superior to laparotomy, with fewer postoperative overall complications (wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, and urinary tract infection). However, MIS is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative aggregate complications (cystotomy, bowel injury, and subcutaneous emphysema) and postoperative fistula complications.

Sentinel Lymph Node Sampling as an Alternative to Lymphadenectomy in Patients With Endometrial Cancer and Obesity

OBJECTIVE

Although its use in endometrial cancer staging is relatively new, sentinel lymph node (SLN) sampling has been shown to be highly accurate and is associated with few complications. However, some studies report lower rates of detection with SLN sampling among patients with obesity. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the feasibility of SLN sampling in endometrial cancer for patients with obesity, and to determine whether omitting lymph node dissection (LND) in surgical staging using SLN sampling impacts oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

we conducted a retrospective study of patients with obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m²⁾, diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma between 2007 and 2017, that compared surgical and oncologic outcomes of 2 cohorts: patients who underwent LND and patients who underwent SLN without lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was operative time. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative bleeding; lymph node assessment information; intraoperative and postoperative adverse events; and oncologic outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). PFS was defined as the time from surgery to the recurrence or death from any cause. OS was defined as time from diagnosis to death or the last date the patient was known to be alive, and DSS was defined as the time from the surgery to death from the disease.

RESULTS

Out of 223 patients with a median BMI of 40.6 kg/m², 140 underwent LND and 83 underwent SLN alone. The median operative time for patients in the SLN group was shorter than that of patients in the LND group (190.5 [range 108-393] vs. 238 [131-440] min; P < 0.001), and the SLN group had lower median estimated blood loss than the LND group (30 [range 0-300] vs. 40 [range 0-800] mL; P = 0.03). At the 24-month follow-up cut-off, 98% of patients were alive and 95.5% were disease free, with no significant differences in OS, DSS, and PFS between the 2 groups (P = 0.7, P = 0.8, and P = 0.4, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with obesity, omitting LND from surgical staging with SLN sampling was associated with shorter operative times and less bleeding and did not affect survival at 2 years.

Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience

To assess and compare the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for women with cervical cancer (CC) treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) approaches in Bulgaria. We retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically diagnosed CC operated via ARH or RRH methods during January-2008 to April-2019. The data analyzed include patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). There were consecutive 1347 patients (ARH = 1006, RRH = 341), which formed the basis of study analyses. Women in the RRH group had significantly shorter median hospital length-of-stay than ARH cases (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), higher post-operative hemoglobin (116 vs. 108 g/L, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (7.3% vs. 21.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. The overall incidence of post-operative complications was also lower in the RRH vs. ARH group (2.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Median follow-up time for ARH vs. RRH groups was 4.32 vs. 5.24 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the RRH cohort had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the ARH group (CC-specific death 8.5% vs. 16.5% respectively). Mean time to recurrence did not differ significantly in either surgical approach (p = 0.495). Cox multivariate regression showed no significant impact of surgical approach on DFS or OS. No significant difference in DFS or OS between ARH vs. RRH for CC was observed. RRH approach does not lead to inferior oncologic outcomes and is associated with better peri-operative outcomes. In regard to "all stages" of CC, we found robotic surgery safer compared to laparotomy, and thus consider RRH a better surgical treatment option for patients with CC.

The influence of learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy on oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer and quantify impact on oncological outcomes.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre with one surgical team.

POPULATION

All women with early-stage cervical cancer treated consecutively with robot-assisted laparoscopy between 2007 and 2017.

METHODS

With multivariate risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM), we assessed the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy of a single surgical team based on cervical cancer recurrence. Subsequently, a survival analysis was conducted comparing oncological outcomes of women treated during different phases of the learning curve.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical proficiency based on recurrence, survival rates in the different learning phases.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five women with cervical cancer underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, with a median follow up of 57 months (range 3-132 months). The RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated two phases of the learning curve: a learning phase of 61 procedures (group 1) and an experienced phase representing the 104 procedures thereafter (group 2). The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.2% in group 1 and 91.1% in group 2 (P = 0.040). Both the 5-year disease-specific survival and overall survival significantly increased after the learning phase.

CONCLUSION

The learning phase of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer in this institutional cohort is at least 61 procedures, with higher survival rates in the women treated thereafter. The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention in the design of future studies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention.

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.

The added value of sentinel node mapping in endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term oncological outcomes and the added value of sentinel lymph node sampling (SLN) compared to pelvic lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

During the evaluation phase of SLN for EC, we performed LND and SLN and retrospectively compared the oncologic outcome with the immediate non-overlapping historical era during which patients underwent LND.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2010, 193 patients underwent LND and from December 2010 to 2014, 250 patients had SLN mapping with completion LND. Both groups had similar clinical characteristics. During a median follow-up period of 6.9 years, addition of SLN was associated with more favorable oncological outcomes compared to LND with 6-year overall survival (OS) of 90% compared to 81% (p = 0.009), and progression free survival (PFS) of 85% compared to 75% (p = 0.01) respectively. SLN was associated with improved OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.004), and PFS (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9, p = 0.03) in a multivariable analysis, adjusted for age, ASA score, stage, grade, non-endometrioid histology, and LVSI. Patients who were staged with SLN were less likely to have a recurrence in the pelvis or lymph node basins compared to patients who underwent LND only (6-year recurrence-free survival 95% vs 90%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Addition of SLN to LND was ultimately associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to LND alone in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing surgical staging, suggesting that the data provided by the analysis of the SLN added relevant clinical information, and improved the decision on adjuvant therapy.

The 34th Annual Meeting of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2019: meeting report

The 34th Annual Meeting of Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) was held in Busan, Korea from 26 to 27 April. Around 460 Korean and international clinicians gathered in Busan to share and discuss their latest work and key issues of gynecologic oncologic research and treatment. The scope of this meeting included recent clinical trials and updates in gynecologic oncology, advances in ovarian cancer treatment, targeted therapy and immunotherapy in gynecologic cancer, management of hereditary gynecologic cancer, and newly revised staging of cervical cancer. As expected, the ongoing debate regarding the recent clinical trial on minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer was addressed throughout the congress and the initial outline of the KSGO position statement was open for discussion. The meeting was an opportunity for all participants to come together and explore scientific insights of gynecologic cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncologic and perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to laparotomy for newly diagnosed early-stage cervical carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion (LVI), IA2, or IB1 cervical carcinoma at our institution from 1/2007-12/2017. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical and oncologic survival outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical testing. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 196 evaluable cases-117 MIS (106 robotic [90.6%]) and 79 laparotomy cases. Cohorts had similar age, BMI, substage, histologic subtype, clinical and pathologic tumor size, positive margins, and presence of LVI. The MIS group had more cases with no residual tumor in the hysterectomy (24.8% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.01). The laparotomy group had more cases with positive nodes (29.1% vs. 17.1%, P = 0.046) and more patients who received adjuvant therapy (53.2% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.006). Median follow-up was ~4 years. Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 87.0% in the MIS group and 86.6% in the laparotomy group (P = 0.92); 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were 96.5% and 93.9%, respectively (P = 0.93); and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 96.5% and 87.4%, respectively (P = 0.15). MIS was not associated with DFS, DSS, or OS on multivariable regression analysis. The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIS cohort (11.1% vs. 20.3%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma did not confer worse oncologic outcomes in our single-center and concurrent series of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma.

Laparotomy or minimal invasive surgery in uterus transplantation: a comparison

Uterus transplantation (UTx) is the first available treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility, a condition due to absence of the uterus or presence of a non-functional uterus. The proof-of-concept of UTx as an infertility treatment for this group of patients occurred in 2014 in Sweden by the first birth after human UTx. That and subsequent cases of the Swedish trial were live-donor UTx procedures with laparotomy of both donor and recipient. Although results of the initial Swedish clinical UTx trial were very favorable in terms of take-home-baby rate, the drawback was the long duration (>10 h) of donor surgeries and associated long recovery periods. There exist three later publications, with uterus procurements from live donors by laparotomy with a range of surgical durations of 5.3 hours to 13 hours. Our collaborative Swedish-French team has initiated efforts to introduce minimal invasive surgery in one trial in Sweden and one in France. The principle of these UTx trials is to use modern concepts of robotic-assisted laparoscopy primarily in the live donor. There also exists a small number of published UTx procedures with donor surgery by partial conventional laparoscopy and one published case with total robotic-assisted laparoscopy procedure. This review discusses open versus minimal invasive surgery in relation to the accumulated knowledge in the field. Moreover, we propose some future directions for the development of this surgery in UTx.