Comparison of long-term survival of total abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: Korean multicenter, retrospective analysis

Safety of vaginal surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal Radical hysterectomy (ARH) with pelvic lymph node assessment is considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Accepted routes have previously included laparoscopic or robotic approaches (LRH). Laparoscopy-assisted vaginal or vaginal radical hysterectomy (LVRH) are performed in some centers. The objective of this study is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LVRH, to laparoscopic and abdominal approaches.

DESIGN PATIENTS SETTING

A retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive cervical cancer cases who underwent a radical hysterectomy between 2007 and 2017 in eleven regional cancer centers across Canada.

MEASUREMENTS

A comparison of patients stratified by surgical technique was undertaken. T-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square were used to compare patient characteristics. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were employed to compare recurrence and survival across surgical groups.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1071 patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion to stage IIIC (FIGO 2018) <4 cm were identified. Postoperative complication rate was lowest for women undergoing LVRH (9.1 %, vs 18.3 % and 22.1 % for minimally invasive and open respectively). During follow up, 114 women recurred, and 70 women died. 5-year recurrence-free survival was 85.4 % for LRH, 89.4 % for ARH and 92.2 % for LVRH. LVRH was not found to be associated with a higher risk of recurrence or death than ARH on multivariable analysis (aHR for recurrence 0.62, CI 0.21-1.77; aHR for death 0.63, CI 0.14-2.77) CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, vaginal or laparoscopy-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer was associated with favorable perioperative and oncological outcomes.

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.

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 impacts of minimally invasive surgery on intermediate- or high-risk cervical cancer patients received adjuvant radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence for patients with risk factors after radical hysterectomy (RH). Early initiated CRT could result in superior oncological outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the survival outcome of intermediate- or high-risk cervical cancer (CC) patients who, received adjuvant CRT between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery.

METHODS

Data on stage IB1-IIA2 patients who underwent RH and postoperative CRT in our institution, from 2014 to 2017, were retrospectively collected. Patients with high or intermediate-risk factors who met the Sedlis criteria received sequential chemoradiation (SCRT). According to the surgical approaches, the enrolled patients were divided into MIS and open surgery groups. Then, the disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 129 enrolled CC patients, 68 received open surgery and 61 received MIS. The median time interval from surgery to chemotherapy and to radiotherapy was shorter in the MIS group (7 days vs. 8 days, P=0.014; 28 days vs. 35, P<0.001). Three-year DFS and OS were similar in both groups (85.2% vs. 89.7%, P=0.274; 89.9% vs. 98.5%, P=0.499). Further, sub-analysis indicated that the DFS and OS in intermediate/high-risk groups had no significant difference. Cox-multivariate analyses found that tumor size >4 cm and time interval from surgery to radiotherapy beyond 7 weeks were adverse independent prognostic factors for DFS.

CONCLUSION

Based on the population we studied, for early-stage (IB1-IIA2) CC patients with intermediate- or high-risk factors who received postoperative SCRT, although the difference was not significant, the DFS and OS in the MIS group were slightly lower than the ORH group, and tumor size >4 cm and delayed adjuvant radiotherapy beyond 7 weeks were risk factors for recurrence.

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.

MRI radiomics combined with clinicopathologic features to predict disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To establish a comprehensive model including MRI radiomics and clinicopathological features to predict post-operative disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage (pre-operative FIGO Stage IB-IIA) cervical cancer.

METHODS

A total of 183 patients with early-stage cervical cancer admitted to our Jiangsu Province Hospital underwent radical hysterectomy were enrolled in this retrospective study from January 2013 to June 2018 and their clinicopathology and MRI information were collected. They were then divided into training cohort (n = 129) and internal validation cohort (n = 54). The radiomic features were extracted from the pre-operative T1 contrast-enhanced (T1CE) and T2 weighted image of each patient. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model were used for feature selection, and the rad-score (RS) of each patient were evaluated individually. The clinicopathology model, T1CE_RS model, T1CE + T2_RS model, and clinicopathology combined with T1CE_RS model were established and compared. Patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to the optimum cut-off values of four models.

RESULTS

T1CE_RS model showed better performance on DFS prediction of early-stage cervical cancer than clinicopathological model (C-index: 0.724 vs 0.659). T1CE+T2_RS model did not improve predictive performance (C-index: 0.671). The combination of T1CE_RS and clinicopathology features showed more accurate predictive ability (C-index=0.773).

CONCLUSION

The combination of T1CE_RS and clinicopathology features showed more accurate predictive performance for DFS of patients with early-stage (pre-operative IB-IIA) cervical cancer which can aid in the design of individualised treatment strategies and regular follow-up.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

A radiomics signature composed of T1CE radiomic features combined with clinicopathology features allowed differentiating patients at high or low risk of recurrence.

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.

Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

This study compared survival outcomes for patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 2009) cervical cancer who underwent open radical hysterectomy (ORH) versus those who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) using vaginal colpotomy (VC).Data for 550 patients who were diagnosed with cervical cancer at our institution during the period August 2005 to September 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 116 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) were selected after applying the exclusion criteria. All MIRH patients underwent VC. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes between the ORH and MIRH groups were compared using appropriate statistical testing.Ninety one patients were treated with ORH and 25 with MIRH during the study period. Among the MIRH patients, 18 underwent laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and 7 underwent laparoscopic RH. Preoperative conization was performed more frequently in MIRH patients than in ORH patients (44% vs 22%, respectively, P = .028). The incidence of lymph node invasion was higher in the ORH group than in MIRH group (37.4% vs 12.0% respectively; P = .016). Following RH, ORH patients underwent adjuvant treatment more frequently than MIRH patients (71.4% vs 56.0%, respectively, P = .002). There were no significant differences between ORH and MIRH patients for either progression-free survival (PFS) (91.3% vs 78.7%, respectively; P = .220) or 5-year overall survival (OS) (96.6% vs 94.7%, respectively, P = .929). In univariate analysis, lympho-vascular space invasion was the only clinicopathological feature associated with decreased PFS. No other clinicopathological factors was significantly associated with PFS or OS in univariate and multivariate analyses.Despite a higher incidence of unfavorable prognostic factors in ORH patients, their survival outcomes were not different to those of MIRH patients with VC.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Results

This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, p=0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, p=0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, p=0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, p=0.041).

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study

PURPOSE

To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.

Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Patients With Stage IA1-IIA1 Cervical Cancer

To estimate whether adjuvant radiotherapy is necessary for patients with stage IA1-IIA1 cervical cancer after laparoscopic hysterectomy, 221 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-two of them were treated with laparoscopic hysterectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy (group A), 115 underwent open surgery (group B) and 44 received laparoscopic hysterectomy alone (group C). Results showed that the 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rates of group A, B and C were 98.4%, 97.4% and 86.4%, respectively. The LRFS rates of group A and B surpassed C (A vs. B, p=0.634; A vs. C, p=0.011; B vs. C, p=0.006). The inter-group differences of 3-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) were not statistically significant. In subgroup analysis of stage IB disease, the 3-year LRFS rates of group A, B and C were 100%, 98.8% and 83.1%, the 3-year OS rates of group A, B and C were 100%, 98.9% and 91.5%, respectively. The 3-year LRFS and OS rates of group A and B were significantly superior to group C (p<0.05). Our findings suggest that adjuvant radiotherapy can reduce the risk of recurrence for women with early-stage cervical cancer after laparoscopic hysterectomy and bring survival benefits for patients with stage IB disease.

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.