Comparison of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater

Effects of tumor spillage prevention in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has a worse prognosis than open surgery, but the reasons for the poor prognosis remain unclear. Tumor spillage occurs when the tumor is exposed to the surgical field and has been suggested to be related to a poor prognosis. This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of tumor spillage in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and evaluate whether tumor spillage prevention improves oncological safety.

METHODS

We compared the prognosis of patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy between December 2014 and November 2021 with or without tumor spillage prevention, including surgeries without prevention and those with failed prevention. Prevention consisted of vaginal cuff formation or closure of the vaginal canal with clips to prevent tumor exposure at the time of colpotomy. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, which was adjusted using propensity scores to compare patients.

RESULTS

In total, 165 patients received tumor spillage prevention, and 61 did not or failed to receive such prevention. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. Patients who did not undergo prevention or failed prevention had significantly shorter disease-free survival than those who did (hazard ratio [HR]=3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.23-10.23). The same trend was observed after adjusting for propensity score matching. Patients who did not or failed to receive prevention were more likely to experience local recurrence (HR=4.01; 95% CI=1.13-14.24).

CONCLUSION

Tumor spillage prevention was associated with longer disease-free survival in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.

The efficacy of pre-operative conization in patients undergoing surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery (MIS) has been reported to increase the risk of cancer relapse and death compared with traditional open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer (CC). Pre-operative conization is a protective procedure that as developed to reduce the risk caused by MIS.

METHODS

Relevant publications were identified by searching medical databases prior to the December 31, 2022. The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of pre-operative conization on disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage CC. The secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of pre-operative conization on overall survival (OS) in early-stage CC.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled result of pre-operative conization showed a significantly improved DFS when compared with non-conization patients (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.41), furthermore, pre-operative conization improved DFS by 75% (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.46) in stage IB1 patients. In patients who underwent MIS, pre-operative conization also led to a significant improvement in DFS when compared with non-conization patients (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54). However, in patients who underwent pre-operative conization, MIS increased the risk of recurrence by 34% when compared with open abdominal radical hysterectomy (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.41-4.38), although this difference was not statistically significant. Finally, the OS of early-stage CC was not significantly affected by surgical approach or conization.

CONCLUSION

Pre-operation conization represents a protective effect and can improve DFS when compared with non-conization in early-stage CC, especially in stage IB CC. There was no statistical evidence to indicate that pre-operation conization could improve OS. High-quality randomized controlled trials are required to verify these results.

Urological Complications in Radical Surgery for Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Meta-Analysis before and after LACC Trial

BACKGROUND

After the LACC trial publication in 2018, the minimally invasive approach (MIS) has severely decreased in favor of open surgery: MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse oncological outcomes than open surgery, but urological complications were never extensively explored in pre- versus post-LACC eras, even if they had a great impact on post-operative QoL. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare functional and organic urological complication rates before and after LACC trial.

METHODS

An independent search of the literature was conducted 4 years before and after the LACC trial and 50 studies were included.

RESULTS

The overall rate of urologic complications was higher in pre-LACC studies while no differences were found for organic urological complications. Conversely, the overall risk of dysfunctional urological complications showed a higher rate in the pre-LACC era. This is probably related to a sudden shift to open surgery, with potential lower thermal damage to the urinary tract autonomic nervous fibers.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that the incidence of urological complications in radical cervical cancer surgery was higher before the LACC trial, potentially due to the shift to open surgery. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to shed light on the connection between minimally invasive surgery and urological damage.

Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node: Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Guided Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to compare the number of lymph nodes removed during indocyanine green (ICG)-guided laparoscopic/robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy with standard systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective comparative study (Clinical Trial ID: NCT04246580; updated on 31 January 2023). Women affected by EC and CC who underwent laparoscopic/robotic systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy, with (cases) or without (controls) the use of ICG tracer injection within the uterine cervix, were included in the study.

RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous for age (p = 0.08), Body Mass Index, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages (p = 0.41 for EC; p = 0.17 for CC), median estimated blood loss (p = 0.76), median operative time (p = 0.59), and perioperative complications (p = 0.66). Nevertheless, the number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was significantly higher (p = 0.005) in the ICG group (n = 18) compared with controls (n = 16).

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate and precise dissection achieved with the use of the ICG-guided procedure was associated with a higher number of lymph nodes removed in the case of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy for EC and CC.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review

Radical hysterectomy is a standard surgery to treat early-stage uterine cervical cancer. The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial has shown that patients receiving minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have a poorer prognosis than those receiving open radical hysterectomy; however, the reason for this remains unclear. The LACC trial had 2 concerns: the learning curve and the procedural effects. Appropriate management of the learning curve effect, including surgeons' skills, is required to correctly interpret the result of surgical randomized controlled trials. Whether the LACC trial managed the learning curve effect remains controversial, based on the surgeons' inclusion criteria and the distribution of institutions with recurrent cases. An appropriate surgical procedure is also needed, and avoiding intraoperative cancer cell spillage plays an important role during cancer surgery. Cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery to treat cervical cancer is caused by several factors, including 1) exposure of tumor, 2) the use of a uterine manipulator, and 3) direct handling of the uterine cervix. Unfortunately, these issues were not addressed by the LACC trial. We evaluated the results of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy while avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer. Our findings show that avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may ensure an equivalent oncologic outcome, comparable to that of open radical hysterectomy. Therefore, evaluating the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery with a better control of the learning curve and procedural effects is needed.

The incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between abdominal and laparoscopic approach: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risks of symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between the laparoscopic and abdominal approach in uterine cervical and endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through April 2020. We selected the comparative studies contained information on symptomatic lymphoceles in postoperative complications. All articles searched were independently reviewed and selected by two researchers. A meta-analysis was performed using the Stata MP version 16.0 software package.

RESULTS

A total of 33 eligible clinical trials were ultimately enrolled in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios (OR) of the laparoscopic approach for the risk of symptomatic lymphoceles compared to the abdominal approach was 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.81, p = 0.022, I-squared = 0.0%]. The risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles in the laparoscopic group tended to decrease over time in the cumulative meta-analysis. In the subgroup analysis, there was no evidence for an association between cancer type, quality of the study methodology, hysterectomy type, and postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles. However, in a recently published article, being overweight (body mass index ≥ 25) and studies conducted in oriental area were associated with a lower incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles than abdominal lymphadenectomy (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42,020,187,165).

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.

Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods

Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results

27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.

Methods

Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.

Results

30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).

Conclusion

DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aimed to evaluate the short term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. A search of PubMed, Medline and Scopus databased from 2000 to 2018 was conducted. Thirty studies were retrieved including 22 retrospective cohort studies and 8 prospective cohort studies. LRH was comparable with ARH in 5-year overall survival (RR = 1.0. 95%CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.33) and 5-year disease-free survival (RR = 1.02 95%CI 0.97-1.06; p = 0.98). The majority of included studies reported the negative cancer factors which drive adjuvant therapy were similar between two approaches. LRH was associated with lower blood loss and blood transfusion, less postoperative complication, shorter hospital stays and similar intraoperative complication rate compared to ARH. Our data suggested LRH for early-stage cervical cancer was as safe and effective in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower surgical morbidities.

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-matching study. The differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the LRH and ARH were compared under the conditions of real-world study and case-control matching (1:1 matching).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the outcomes of LRH (n = 580) and ARH (n = 1653) in 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 80.6% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.421; DFS: 78.6% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.376). After 1:1 matching, there was no difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LRH (n = 554) and ARH (n = 554) (OS: 80.4% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.993; DFS: 79.0% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.695). Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 5-year OS and DFS, and postoperative adjuvant therapy affected patient prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested that there was no difference in LRH (n = 313) and ARH (n = 1092) in 5-year OS or DFS in patients who underwent standard postoperative adjuvant therapy (OS: 83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.992; DFS: 79.0% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.323). After 1:1 pairing, the 5-year OS and DFS in LRH (n = 295) and ARH (n = 295) showed no difference. Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the 5-year OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS

The ethical approval number is NFEC-2017-135, and the clinical research registration number is CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

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.

A retrospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in Japan during the early years following its introduction: a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study (JGOG1081S)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer, in terms of morbidity and short-term oncologic outcome following LRH's introduction into Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO staging IA2, IB1, and IIA1) who underwent LRH from Dec 2014 to Dec 2016. We assessed the morbidity, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), and prognostic factors for RFS.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were included from 22 facilities across Japan. There were 8 cases of stage IA2 cervical cancer, 226 of IB1, and 17 of IIA1. The median operating time was 343 min and the median blood loss was 190 ml. Two patients (0.8%) had a postoperative complication with a Clavien-Dindo classification of grade 3 or higher. After a median follow-up time of 15.6 months, the 2-year RFS was 87.4%, and the 2-year OS was 97.8%. When the 2-year RFS rate was compared with whether the patient pathologically had tumors of less than 2 cm, versus 2 cm or more, the RFS was 95.8% and 80.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis found that tumor size and the route of lymph node removal were independent prognostic factors for recurrence.

CONCLUSION

When LRH was first introduced into Japan, we found that the route of lymph node removal was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence in addition to large tumors (≥ 2 cm). Our results suggest that prognosis may be secured by paying attention to the lymph node removal route.

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.

Laparoscopic Regional Radical Hysterectomy Showed Promising Clinical Outcomes in Early-stage Cervical Cancer

Objectives:

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of standardized and region-specific excision in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC).

Materials and Methods:

This is a retrospective case–controlled study from 2011 to December 2016. A total of 328 women with ECC (IA1, IA2, IB1, or IIA1) underwent primary surgery by laparoscopy or laparotomy in our institute. Women diagnosed as stage IB1 or IIA1 were treated with radical hysterectomy (RH) by open or laparoscopic route. The total parametrium excision in the process of RH was measured and highlighted in the study.

Results:

A total of 186 patients underwent open surgery and 142 ones were treated with laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with less blood loss (194.43 ± 84.40 ml vs. 362.68 ± 253.36 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (11 vs. 14 days, P < 0.01), and lower risk of blood transfusion (2.8% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications between two groups (18/142, 12.7% vs. 21/186, 11.3%; P > 0.05). The rate of 5-year overall survival (OS) was 92.8% in laparoscopy group, similar to that of 94.4% in the open group (P = 0.762). Disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 3 years in laparoscopy group was decreased when compared to open group (91.8% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.030), but there was no significant difference in 3-year DFS among the women with tumor size <2 cm (100% vs. 97.0%, P = 0.818).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better surgical outcomes compared to open surgery in ECC. 5-Year OS was comparable between the groups and cases with tumor size <2 cm showed no difference in 3-year DFS. LRH may be a better fit for women with tumor size <2 cm. Standardized region-specific RH helps to optimize the clinical outcomes of LRH in ECC.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms “minimally invasive surgical procedures” and “Uterine Cervical Neoplasms.” Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias.

Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06–1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21–1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50–3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36–2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65–1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65–2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.

Preoperative Conization and Risk of Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the factors associated with poorer oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for early stage cervical cancer.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective study.

SETTING

Three gynecologic oncology referral centers.

PATIENTS

Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA (positive lymphovascular space invasion)-IB1 cervical cancer between January 2006 and June 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

LRH (Piver type II-III hysterectomies). Lymph-node dissection was accomplished according to the tumor characteristics.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Surgical and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Overall, 186 patients met the inclusion criteria, 16 (8.6%) experienced a recurrence, and 9 (4.8%) died of the disease (median follow-up period 37.9 months). Surgery-related complications did not influence disease-free survival. All the recurrences (16/16; 100%) occurred in patients with stage IB1 disease (p = .02), and 15 (93.7%) in cases involving tumors ≥2 cm. No association between positive lymph node and recurrence was detected (p =.82). Patients who had a preoperative diagnosis through conization (93; 50%) had a significantly lower rate of recurrence than those who underwent cervical biopsy (93; 50%): 1/93 (1.1%) vs 15/93 (16.1%); p <.001). The subanalysis of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB1 cervical cancer showed that patients undergoing preoperative conization (vs cervical biopsy) were less likely to experience a recurrence (odds ratio 0.09; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.55).

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that LRH was associated with a recurrence rate similar to that reported in the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial. Tumor size ≥2 cm represents the most important risk factor influencing disease-free survival. However, we found that preoperative conization plays a potentially protective role in patients with an IB1 tumor.

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

BACKGROUND

To investigate the survival outcomes of stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy in China between 2004 and 2016. A real-world study (RWS) and 1:1 matching was used in the study.

RESULTS

After 1:1 matching, laparoscopic (n = 926) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (n = 926) had similar 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Subsequently, in cervical squamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic and abdominal groups (724 cases, respectively) showed comparable 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Finally, in cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic group (n = 174) had a similar 5-year overall survival rate but a lower disease-free survival rate compared to those of the abdominal group (disease-free survival: 89.9% vs. 98.0%, respectively, P = 0.006; hazard ratio (HR), 5.094; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.400-18.535; P = 0.013; n = 174). The RWS results were similar to the 1:1 matching results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size ≤ 2 cm might be suitable for laparoscopic surgery, while patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm are not candidates for laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Less radical surgery for women with early stage cervical cancer: Our experience on radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy

We report the use of radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT) with pelvic laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (LPL) in patients with early stages cervical cancer (FIGO stage IA2-IB1). This is a case series prospectively collected over a 6-year period (2011–2017) at the Ipswich hospital, UK. Cases were compared to a group of women with a similar stage of cervical cancer, but treated with radical hysterectomy (RH) and pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL). A total of 19 patients (group 1) underwent RVT and LPL, and 51 (group 2) had RH and PL. We included: 5/19 (26%) stage IA2 and 14/19 (74%) stage IB1. Among those, we had: 12/19 (63%) cases of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 7/19(37%) of adenocarcinoma. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 days (range 2–4) in group 1 versus 4.8 days (range 3–8) group 2 (p-value = 0.173). The complication rate was not statistically different between the two groups 4/19(21%) and 7/51(14%) (p-value 0.169). The mean follow-up period was 47.3 months (range 7–78) in both groups. There were no cases of recurrence in group 1 and 2/51(4%) cases in group 2, but the difference was not significant (p-value = 0.497). In our experience RVT in well-selected patients is a safe treatment option with similar oncological outcomes when compared to patients undergoing more extensive surgery for the same early stage cervical cancer.

•

Less radical surgery in women with early cervical cancer is a safe surgical alternative.

•

Large trials are warranted to reconsider management of early stages cervical cancer in young women.

•

We report similar outcomes between radical hysterectomy and fertility sparing surgery.

Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In cervical cancer, the impact of hospital volume of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has not been investigated systematically as in ovarian cancer.The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital care volume of LRH on treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with the terms "cervical cancer," "radical hysterectomy," and "laparoscopy." The selection criteria included studies presenting operative outcomes and/or perioperative complications of LRH from high-volume hospitals (HVHs) (≥15 cases/year) and low-volume hospitals (LVHs) (<15 cases/year). Fifty-nine studies including 4367 cases were selected. Linear regression analysis weighted by the average annual case number in each study was performed to evaluate differences between the groups.

RESULTS

In HVH, a higher number of lymph nodes (24.5 vs 21.1; P = .037) were retrieved by LRH in older women (48.4 vs 44.5 years; P = .010) with tendencies of shorter operation time (224.4 vs 256.4 minutes; P = .096) and less blood loss (253.1 vs 322.2 mL; P = .080). Compared with LVH, HVH had fewer patients with stage IA disease (13.8 vs 24.4%; P = .003) and more patients with stage IIA disease (15.3 vs 7.1%; P = .052) with comparable 5-year overall survival (93.1 vs 88.6%; P = .112).

CONCLUSION

HVH is a prognostic factor for operative outcome and perioperative complications in patients with cervical cancer undergoing LRH. The exact effect of hospital volume on survival outcome needs to be evaluated.

Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer

Objective

Cervical cancer (CC) continues to be a global burden for women, with higher incidence and mortality rates reported annually. Many countries have witnessed a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of CC due to widely accessed robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). This network meta-analysis aims to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in way of RRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LTH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the treatment of early-stage CC.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases was performed from inception to June 2016. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of above three hysterectomies in the treatment of early-stage CC were included in this study. Direct and indirect evidence were incorporated for calculating values of weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), and drawing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

Results

Seventeen 17 CCTs were ultimately enrolled in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that patients treated by RRH and LRH had lower estimated blood loss compared to patients treated by ORH (WMD = -399.52, 95% CI = -600.64~-204.78; WMD = -277.86, 95%CI = -430.84 ~ -126.07, respectively). Patients treated by RRH and LRH had less hospital stay (days) than those by ORH (WMD = -3.49, 95% CI = -5.79~-1.24; WMD = -3.26, 95% CI = -5.04~-1.44, respectively). Compared with ORH, patients treated with RRH had lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.08~0.65). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of three radical hysterectomies showed that patients receiving RRH illustrated better conditions on intraoperative blood loss, operation time, the number of resected lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, while patients receiving ORH demonstrated relatively poorer conditions.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that early-stage CC patients treated by RRH were superior to patients treated by LRH and ORH in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, and RRH might be regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for the management of CC.

Surgical and Pathological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy With Pelvic Lymphadenectomy and/or Para-aortic Lymph Node Sampling for Bulky Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for bulky early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 112 patients with stage IB1 or IIA2 cervical cancer in which the tumor diameter was 3 cm or greater. All patients underwent LRH (n = 30) or ARH (n = 82) with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling between May 2011 and November 2014. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 surgical groups.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach consisted of 4 trocar insertions. Age, tumor diameter, and pelvic lymph nodes significantly differed between the 2 cohorts. Body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histologic type and grade, deep stromal invasion, lymphovascular space invasion, positive margins, and adjuvant therapy were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy exhibited favorable results compared with ARH in terms of operating time, blood loss, intestinal exhaust time, and length of hospital stay. In addition, recurrence was observed in 5 LRH patients (16.7%) and 9 ARH patients (11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes of LRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymph node sampling exhibited a similar therapeutic efficacy to those of the ARH approach.

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA2 to IIA2 Cervical Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for treatment of stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer.

METHODS

We matched stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer patients with known risk factors for recurrence who underwent ARH or LRH.

RESULTS

After matching, a total of 203 patient pairs (LRH-ARH) were included. The LRH and ARH group had similar 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates (91.3% vs 90.4%, P = 0.83) and overall survival (OS) rates (93.2% vs 92.1%, P = 0.94). Patients with different tumor size (≤2, 2-4, >4 cm) had similar 5-year OS and RFS. Even in patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis, the 5-year RFS (69.20% vs 69.20%, P = 0.87) and OS (77.4% vs 76.3%, P = 0.83) did not differ statistically between the 2 groups. The LRH and ARH group had similar mean time to recurrence (16.29 vs 22.15 months, P = 0.68) and pattern of recurrence (P = 0.63). Compared with ARH, LRH resulted in significantly shorter operating time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. The intraoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.72). The rate of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the LRH group than in the ARH group (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with fewer operating time, blood loss, postoperative complication, and earlier recovery. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is an oncologically safe alternative to ARH.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of "laparoscopic OR laparoscopy" AND "radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer" to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD = -178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -214.89 to -141.94, P < .00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD = 43.68, 95% CI = 29.42-57.95, P < .00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD = -3.44, 95% CI = -5.96 to -0.92, P = .007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD = -3.17, 95% CI = -4.06 to -2.29, P < .00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD = -0.7, 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.45, P < .00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.83 to -0.55, P < .004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73, P = .0007), and ileus (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, P = .03) than ARH.

CONCLUSION

LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.

Percutaneous Treatment of Chylous Ascites

Chylous ascites occurs as a result of lymphatic leakage, which contains high concentration of triglycerides. The leakage is caused by various benign or malignant etiologies ranging from congenital lymphatic abnormality to trauma. Lymphangiography has been shown to be effective in the diagnosis of lymphatic leakage and has also been reported to have therapeutic outcome. The development of intranodal technique for lymphangiography has recently made the procedure more widespread. As an adjunctive procedure, percutaneous embolization may be performed which involves use of embolic agents such as N-butyl cyanoacrylate and coil to occlude the leak. Embolization in the lymphatic system was first made popular by the introduction of thoracic duct embolization by Cope et al and has recently led to the development of various techniques for percutaneous embolization. This article reviews the options and techniques for percutaneous treatment of lymphatic leaks in patients presenting with chylous ascites.

Surgical Treatment of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has been a cornerstone in the management of this malignancy for more than 100 years. Today, for early-stage and low-risk cervical cancer, surgery is still considered the gold standard. If the preoperative assessment of the tumor reveals a situation prompting postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy, the latter should be planned as the primary treatment option, being preceded by staging laparoscopy including pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection. As an alternative to the open approach, the definitive surgical treatment should be either performed laparoscopically, or be laparoscopic-assisted, or laparoscopically robotic-assisted.

Risk model in stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer with positive node after radical hysterectomy

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors in patients with surgically treated node-positive IB1-IIB cervical cancer and to establish a risk model for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 170 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy as primary treatment for node-positive International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer from January 2002 to December 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Five published risk models were evaluated in this population. The variables, including common iliac lymph node metastasis and parametrial invasion, were independent predictors of outcome in a multivariate analysis using a Cox regression model. Three distinct prognostic groups (low, intermediate, and high risk) were defined using these variables. Five-year DFS rates for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 73.7%, 60.0%, and 25.0%, respectively (P<0.001), and 5-year OS rates were 81.9%, 42.8%, and 25.0%, respectively (P<0.001). The risk model derived in this study provides a novel means for assessing prognosis of patients with node-positive stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer. Future study will focus on external validation of the model and refinement of the risk scoring systems by adding new biologic markers.

Laparoscopy in uterine cervical cancer. Current state and literature review

Cervical cancer remains the most frequent gynecological tumor in Brazil and other developing countries. Minimally invasive techniques, especially laparoscopy, have been increasingly employed in such tumors. This article aims to describe the main applications of laparoscopy in the treatment and staging of cervical cancer. In the early stages, it is possible to provide a fertility-preserving surgery in the form of radical trachelectomy and, in a study protocol, the function-preserving surgery, avoiding parametrectomy and the associated morbidity. A fully laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is fairly standard in the literature and has the tendency to become the standard of care in early cases, for patients who want to bear no more children. In advanced stages, minimally invasive surgery can offer ovarian transposition, with intent to prevent actinic castration, without upsetting the time for the start of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Staging laparoscopic surgery, including pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, has been the subject of studies, since it has the potential to modify the extension of radiotherapy depending on the extent of lymph node spread.

Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Objective: Studies comparing the prognostic results between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in cervical cancer reported contradictory results. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic and safety roles of LRH by pooling studies in a meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: Original articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The survival results (5-year disease-free survival [DFS], 5-year overall survival [OS], and recurrence rate [RR]), safety parameters (intra-, peri-, and postoperative complication rates and postoperative bowel or bladder recovery days), efficiency parameters (pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed), and other parameters (operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital of stay) between the two approaches were reviewed.

Results: For the 2922 cases identified, DFS, OS, and RR did not differ in balanced prognostic factors, including lymph node metastasis, Stage IIB or above, non–squamous cancer histology, grade G3, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size ≥4 cm, and positive parametrial and vaginal margin rates. Meanwhile, LRH was associated with higher complication rates and a shorter time to the recovery of bowel or bladder function than for ARH. The number of removed pelvic or para-aortic lymph nodes did not significantly differ. Other parameters showed LRH was associated with a longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of hospital stay. The survival and prognostic results did not differ in balanced prognostic factors.

Conclusions: LRH is safe and has lower operative complication rates than ARH.

Total Laparoscopic Versus Laparotomic Radical Hysterectomy and Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer: An Observational Study of 13-Year Experience

This article aims to review our 13-year experience in the treatment of patients with cervical cancer by comparing total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy with laparotomy.We reviewed all patients undergoing total laparoscopic or laparotomic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy because of cervical cancer between 2001 and 2014 in our hospital.In total, 154 eligible patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Ia-IIb were enrolled, including 106 patients undergoing total laparoscopic procedure and 48 patients undergoing laparotomic procedure. In the present study, patients in total laparoscopy group were associated with superior surgical outcomes, such as significantly lower blood transfusion compared to those in laparotomy group. Furthermore, patients had significantly lower postoperative complication rate in total laparoscopy group compared with that in laparotomy group (24.5% vs 52.1%) (P = 0.001). Three patients (2.8%) in total laparoscopy group had unplanned conversion to laparotomy. Disease-free survival rates were 89.7% and 88.9% in total laparoscopy and laparotomy groups (P = 0.39), respectively, and overall survival rates were 90.2% in total laparoscopy group and 91.3% in laparotomy group (P = 0.40).Total laparoscopic procedure is a surgically and oncologically safe and reliable alternative to laparotomic procedure in the treatment for cervical cancer.

The surgical management of cervical cancer: an overview and literature review

IMPORTANCE

Surgery has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky carcinoma of the cervix. The mainstay of surgical management is radical hysterectomy; however, less radical procedures have a small but important role in the management of cervical tumors.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to discuss the literature behind the different procedures utilized in the management of cervical cancer, emphasizing the radical hysterectomy. In addition, we aimed to discuss ongoing trials looking at the utility of less radical surgeries as well as emerging technologies in the management of this disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a PubMed literature search for articles in the English language that pertained to the topic of surgical techniques and their outcomes in the treatment of cervical cancer.

RESULTS

The minimally invasive approaches to radical hysterectomy appear to reduce morbidity without affecting oncological outcomes, although further data are needed looking at long-term outcomes with the robotic platform. Trials are currently ongoing looking at the role of less radical surgery for patients with low-risk disease and the feasibility of sentinel lymph node mapping.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky disease, and there is a clear advantage in the use of minimally invasive techniques to perform these procedures. However, pending ongoing trials, less radical surgery in patients with low-risk invasive disease as well as sentinel lymph node mapping may emerge as standards of care in selected patients with cervical carcinoma.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Analysis of the Risk Factors of Surgical Complications and of Oncologic Outcomes

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the morbidity and the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in treating early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

We included all patients with early-stage cervical cancer (IA, IB1, IIA1, and IIB), as assessed by the Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging criteria, undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy from January 1999 to December 2013 in our center. Morbidity was classified according to the Clavien and Dindo classification.

Results

A total of 170 patients were included in which 7 patients were in stage IA2, 150 in IB1, 2 in IIA, and 7 in IIB. The mean operation time was 256 minutes (67–495 minutes). Fourteen severe perioperative complications (8.2%) occurred, in which 5 patients (2.9%) required conversion to an open procedure: 3 bowel injuries, 3 hemorrhages, 2 ureteral injuries, 3 bladder injuries, 2 severe adhesions, and 1 intolerance to the Trendelenburg position. Fourteen patients (8.2%) presented with 1 severe postoperative complication (grade III or more). Two factors appeared as independent risk factors for perioperative and/or postoperative complications: the tumor size (odds ratio, 1.128; 95% confidence interval, 1.054–1.207) and operative time (odds ratio, 1.0116; 95% confidence interval, 1.003–1.020). In a median follow-up of 47.7 months, the 5-year overall survival was 94.1% (range, 88.1%–97.3%), and the 5-year disease-free survival was 88.8% (range, 81.0%–92.6%).

Conclusions

The laparoscopic approach was favorable for both perioperative and postoperative morbidity. With the advantage of minimal invasiveness, laparoscopic treatment by experienced surgeons is an alternative for early-stage cervical cancer with correct long-term survival outcomes. Mini-invasive surgery could be the standard in early-stage cervical cancer.

Current and Future Status of Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology

Laparoscopy is playing an increasingly important role in gynecologic oncology. The benefits of minimally invasive surgery for oncology patients and the quality of this treatment are well documented. Outcomes and quality of minimally invasive surgical procedures to treat cervical cancer were evaluated based on retrospective and case-control studies; outcomes and quality after minimally invasive treatment für early-stage low-risk endometrial cancer were also assessed in prospective randomized studies. If indicated, laparoscopic lymphadenectomy is both technically feasible and oncologically safe. Adipose patients in particular benefit from minimally invasive procedures, where feasible. The potential role of laparoscopy in neoadjuvant therapy for ovarian cancer and in surgery for early-stage ovarian carcinoma is still controversially discussed and is currently being assessed in further studies. Using a minimally invasive approach in gynecologic oncology procedures demands strict adherence to oncological principles and requires considerable surgical skill.