Gynaecologic surgery from uncertainty to science: evidence-based surgery is no passing fad

Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological malignancies. Opinions differ regarding the role of ultra-radical (extensive) cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and morbidity associated with ultra-radical/extensive surgery in the management of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid up to November 2021. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), analysed using multivariate methods, that compared ultra-radical/extensive and standard surgery in women with advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We identified three NRS and conducted meta-analyses where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three retrospective observational studies for inclusion in the review. Two studies included women exclusively undergoing upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) and the other study including both PDS and interval debulking surgical (IDS) procedures. All studies were at critical risk of bias due to retrospective and non-randomised study designs. Meta-analysis of two studies, assessing 397 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures, as part of PDS, may have a lower risk of mortality compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis including women with more-extensive disease (carcinomatosis) (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; n = 283, very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. One study reported a comparison of radical versus standard surgical procedures associated with both PDS and IDS procedures, but a multivariate analysis was only undertaken for disease-free survival (DFS) and therefore the certainty of the evidence was not assessable for overall survival (OS) and remains very low. The lack of reporting of OS meant the study was at high risk of bias for selective reporting of outcomes. One study, 203 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures as part of PDS may have a lower risk of disease progression or death compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.92; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis in one study including women with carcinomatosis (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; n = 139; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. A combined analysis in one study found that women who underwent radical procedures (using both PDS and IDS) may have an increased chance of disease progression or death than those who received standard surgery (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; n = 527; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. In absolute and unadjusted terms, the DFS was 19.3 months in the standard surgery group, 15.8 in the PDS group and 15.9 months in the IDS group. All studies were at critical risk of bias and we only identified very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes reported in the review. Perioperative mortality, adverse events and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were either not reported or inadequately reported in the included studies. Two studies reported perioperative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery), but they did not use any statistical adjustment. In total, there were only four deaths within 30 days of surgery in both studies. All were observed in the standard surgery group, but we did not report a risk ratio (RR) to avoid potentially misleading results with so few deaths and very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, one study reported postoperative morbidity, but the authors did not use any statistical adjustment. Postoperative morbidity occurred more commonly in women who received ultra-radical surgery compared to standard surgery, but the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only very low-certainty evidence comparing ultra-radical surgery and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence was limited to retrospective, NRSs and so is at critical risk of bias. The results may suggest that ultra-radical surgery could result in improved OS, but results are based on very few women who were chosen to undergo each intervention, rather than a randomised study and intention-to-treat analysis, and so the evidence is very uncertain. Results for progression/DFS were inconsistent and evidence was sparse. QoL and morbidity was incompletely or not reported in the three included studies. A separate prognostic review assessing residual disease as a prognostic factor in this area has been addressed elsewhere, which demonstrates the prognostic effect of macroscopic debulking to no macroscopic residual disease. In order to aid existing guidelines, the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced-stage ovarian cancer could be addressed through the conduct of a sufficiently powered, RCT comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery, or well-designed NRSs, if this is not possible.

Bowel surgery as a fertility-enhancing procedure in patients with colorectal endometriosis: methodological, pathogenic and ethical issues

Bowel surgery for colorectal endometriosis is being promoted to infertile women without severe sub-occlusive symptoms, with the objective of improving the likelihood of conception. Contrary to rectal shaving, bowel surgery involving full-thickness disk excision and segmental resection entails opening of the intestinal lumen thus increasing the risk of postoperative infectious complications. About 1 in 10 patients undergoing colorectal resection for intestinal endometriosis will experience severe sequelae, including anastomotic dehiscence, rectovaginal fistula formation, and bladder and bowel denervation. Similar to other surgical procedures aiming at enhancing fertility in women with endometriosis, bowel surgery has been introduced into clinical practice without adequate evaluation through randomized controlled trials. According to systematic literature reviews based mainly on case series, the incremental gain of adding bowel procedures to standard surgery appears uncertain in terms of pregnancy rate after both natural attempts and IVF. Considering the methodological drawbacks and the high risk of bias in the available observational studies, it is not possible to exclude the suggestion that the benefit of colorectal surgery has been overestimated. Given the risk of harms to women's health and the important ethical implications, less emphasis should be put on strict statistical significance and more emphasis should be placed on the magnitude of the effect size. In this regard, the published data may not be generalizable, as the surgeons publishing their results may not be representative of all surgeons. Until the results of adequately designed and conducted RCTs are available, colorectal surgery with the sole intent of improving the reproductive performance of infertile patients with intestinal endometriosis should be performed exclusively within research settings and by highly experienced surgeons. Women should be informed about the uncertainties regarding the harms and benefits of bowel surgery in different clinical conditions, and preoperative counselling must be conducted impartially with the objective of achieving a truly shared medical decision.

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

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Standard surgical management for selected early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy. Traditionally, radical hysterectomy has been carried out via the abdominal route and this remains the gold standard surgical management of early cervical cancer. In recent years, advances in minimal access surgery have made it possible to perform radical hysterectomy with the use of laparoscopy with the aim of reducing the surgical morbidity and promoting a faster recovery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) in women with early-stage (1 to 2A) cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 7, 2013, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to July 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared laparoscopically assisted radical hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy, in adult women diagnosed with early (stage 1 to 2A) cervical cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We found one RCT, which included 13 women, that met our inclusion criteria and this trial reported data on LARVH versus RAH.Women who underwent LARVH for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer appeared to have less blood loss compared with those who underwent RAH. The trial reported a borderline significant difference between the two types of surgery (median blood loss 400 mL (interquartile range (IQR): 325 to 1050) and 1000 mL (IQR: 800 to 1025) for LARVH and RAH, respectively, P value = 0.05). RAH was associated with significantly shorter operation time compared with LARVH (median: 180 minutes with LARVH versus 138 minutes with RAH, P value = 0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative complications in women who underwent LARVH and RAH. The trial reported two (29%) and four (57%) cases of intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively, in the LARVH group and no (0%) reported cases of intraoperative complications and five (83%) cases of postoperative complications in the RAH group. There were no reported cases of severe perioperative complications.Bladder and bowel dysfunction of either a transient or chronic nature remain major morbidities after radical hysterectomy, and the one included study showed that there may be significantly less after LARVH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. Therefore, the absence of reliable evidence, regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of early-stage cervical cancer, precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice. The trial did not report data on long-term outcomes, but was at moderate risk of bias due to very low numbers of included women.

Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011.Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease, radiotherapy is extended to cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is confirmed. Therefore, accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2012). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial that was at moderate risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review no new studies were found.From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However, this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore, the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.

Future research in gynaecological surgery

Gynaecological surgery is constantly evolving. To inform practice with high-impact research, clinicians need to focus on areas of importance. Surveys of specialist members of the British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy have revealed a range of areas for research: diagnostic performance of laparoscopies; therapeutic laparoscopies in endometriosis; laparoscopic versus hysteroscopic sterilisation; and laparoscopic surgical techniques, among others. Clinical and economic outcomes are important in evaluating effectiveness and use of surgical health technology. For studies to be valid, reliable and generalisable, they would have to be free of bias, large and multi-centred. In a time of financial constraints, it is important to encourage clinicians and trainees to participate in important research studies to improve outcomes for patients.

Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease radiotherapy is extended to additionally cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is proven. Therefore accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre- treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to January 2011). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced CT scan or MRI scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial which was at moderate risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.

Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer among women and the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological malignancies. Opinions differ regarding the role of ultra-radical (extensive) cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer treatment. 

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and morbidity associated with ultra-radical/extensive surgery in the management of advanced stage ovarian cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2010). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies, analysed using multivariate methods, that compared ultra-radical/extensive and standard surgery in adult women with advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. One non-randomised study was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

One non-randomised study met our inclusion criteria. It analysed retrospective data for 194 women with stage IIIC advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent either ultra-radical (extensive) or standard surgery and reported disease specific overall survival and perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis, adjusted for prognostic factors, identified better disease specific survival among women receiving ultra-radical surgery, although this was not statistically significant (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40 to 1.04). In a subset of 144 women with carcinomatosis, those who underwent ultra-radical surgery had significantly better disease specific survival than women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.98). Progression-free survival and quality of life (QoL) were not reported and adverse events were incompletely documented. The study was at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found only low quality evidence comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer and carcinomatosis. The evidence suggested that ultra-radical surgery may result in better survival.  It was unclear whether there were any differences in progression-free survival, QoL and morbidity between the two groups. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention has not been investigated. We are, therefore, unable to reach definite conclusions about the relative benefits and adverse effects of the two types of surgery.In order to determine the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced stage ovarian cancer, a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery or well-designed non-randomised studies would be required.

Surgical interventions for high grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its' multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising particularly in the younger age group.There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat symptoms and exclude underlying malignancy with the continued aim of preservation of vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity thus impacting on the patients' quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for high grade VIN.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 3, 2010, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical interventions, in adult women diagnosed with high grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one RCT which included 30 women that met our inclusion criteria and this trial reported data on carbon dioxide laser (CO(2) laser) versus ultrasonic surgical aspiration (USA).There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of disease recurrence after one year follow-up, pain, presence of scarring, dysuria or burning, adhesions, infection, abnormal discharge and eschar between women who received CO(2) laser and those who received USA. The trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events, but was at low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. Therefore in the absence of reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice.

Cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Most women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer will ultimately develop recurrent disease after completion of initial treatment with primary surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary cytoreductive surgery may have survival benefits in selected patients. However, a number of chemotherapeutic agents are active in recurrent ovarian cancer and the standard treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer remains poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of secondary surgical cytoreduction and chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, (CENTRAL) Issue 1 2009, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs, quasi-randomised trials and non-randomised studies that compared secondary cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy to chemotherapy alonein women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found and therefore no data were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1431 unique references of which all were excluded on the basis of title and abstract.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence from RCTs to inform decisions about secondary surgical cytoreduction and chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Ideally, a large randomised controlled trial or, at the very least, well designed non-randomised studies that use multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances are needed to compare these treatment modalities.

Gynaecological surgery from art and craft to science?

Randomised controlled trials are applied more readily to medical than surgical interventions. There are even more barriers to randomised trials of surgical interventions than to other randomised trials. These include reluctance among surgeons to undertake trials (owing to concern over expressing equipoise, surgical training and surgical learning curve issues, restrictions of funding and time for research, even financial conflict of interest), reluctance of patients to participate in surgical trials owing to fears over 'experimental surgery', failure of randomised trials to detect rare surgical complications and the almost universal failure of those conducting surgical trials to examine important long-term outcomes. Rapid advances in surgical fields mean that new surgical techniques are rapidly superseded and clinical questions surrounding new techniques may linger only until the next new technique becomes available. Nonetheless randomised controlled trials remain the cornerstone of evaluating the effectiveness of surgical interventions. Genuine progress has been made in this field. However, large multicentre collaborative randomised trials that have been prospectively defined in trial registries will be required in the future to answer the important clinical questions regarding gynaecological surgical interventions.