Introduction of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: impact on complications, costs and oncologic outcome

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.

Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.

New Insights on the Minimal-Invasive Therapy of Cervical Cancer

Objective: The ideal management of early-stage cervical cancer has become the subject of a global controversy following the publication of a prospective study in 2018 that reported a worse oncologic outcome when comparing the minimally invasive approach to the laparotomy approach. The discussion involves both prospective and retrospective data and general and theoretical considerations. We wanted to look at the data available today and review the different opinions, offering an impartial assessment of the ongoing controversy. Methods: The available literature was reviewed, focusing on articles arguing for and against minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. We tried to avoid any fundamental bias, as is often evident in the available reviews on the subject. Literature both before and after the 2018 publication was taken into consideration. Results: As is usual in discussions of concepts, the literature that is now available provides arguments for both sides of this challenging issue, depending on one’s standpoint. Science-related writing is not immune to trends. There is a curious shift in opinion seen before and after 2018. One must question whether there was a prejudice in favor of minimally invasive surgery prior to the publication of the NEJM articles and a bias against it afterward. Conclusion: Whether further minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer is invariable is tied to the more pressing question of how this surgery will have to be centralized in the future. Unless these questions are linked, no satisfactory solution can be found.

Clavien-Dindo classification and risk prediction model of complications after robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

Although significant progress has been made with surgical methods, the incidence of complications after minimally invasive surgery in patients with cervical cancer remains high. Established as a standardized system, Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) has been applied in a variety of surgical fields. This study is designed to evaluate the complications after robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer using CDC and further establish a prediction model. This is a study on the development of prediction model based on retrospective data. Patients with cervical cancer who received RRH treatment in our hospital from January 2016 to April 2019 were invited to participate in the study. The demographic data, laboratory and imaging examination results and postoperative complications were collected, and the logistic regression model was applied to analyze the risk factors possibly related to complications to establish a prediction model. 753 patients received RRH. The overall incidence of complications was 32.7%, most of which were grade I and grade II (accounting for 30.6%). The results of multivariate analysis showed that the preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.693, 95%CI: 1.210-2.370, P = 0.002), preoperative ALT (OR = 1.028, 95%CI: 1.017-1.039, P < 0.001), preoperative urea nitrogen (OR = 0.868, 95%CI: 0.773-0.974, P = 0.016), preoperative total bilirubin (OR = 0.958, 95%CI: 0.925-0.993, P = 0.0.018), and preoperative albumin (OR = 0.937, 95%CI: 0.898-0.979, P = 0.003) were related to the occurrence of postoperative complications. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) in the prediction model of RRH postoperative complications established based on these five factors was 0.827 with 95% CI of 0.794-0.860. In patients undergoing robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, preoperative ALT level, urea nitrogen level, total bilirubin level, albumin level, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were significantly related to the occurrence of postoperative complications. The regression prediction model established on this basis showed good prediction performance with certain clinical promotion and reference value.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Purpose

To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center.

Results

Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102–1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013–1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

The Surgeon's Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by surgeons in different phases and evaluate whether the proficiency of surgeons affects the survival outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 851 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2008 and June 2018 (every year from January to June) at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into four phases according to their sequence (phase one, 1-10 cases; phase two: 11-20 cases; phase three: 21-30 cases; phase four: > 30 cases). Demographics and clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed.

Results

There were no statistical differences between the open surgery and MIS groups regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The OS and DFS of patients in the MIS group in phase one were significantly lower than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group after adjustment (OS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.896; 95%CI, 1.303-6.435; DFS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.712; 95%CI, 1.289-5.706). Survival outcomes were not statistically significant when comparing different surgeons.

Conclusion

The phase one cases of MIS had lower OS and DFS than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group. Thus, we suggest that the proficiency of surgeons is associated with survival outcomes of MIS. Favorable outcomes can be obtained after a certain number of MIS cases.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has many benefits, in the form of reduced postoperative morbidity, improved recovery and reduced inpatient stay. It is imperative, however, when new techniques are adopted, in the context of treating oncology patients, that the oncological efficacy and safety are established rigorously rather than assumed based on first principles. Here we have attempted to provide a comprehensive review of all the contentious and topical themes surrounding the use of MIS in the treatment of endometrial and cervix cancer following a thorough review of the literature. On the topic of endometrial cancer, we cover the role of laparoscopy in both early and advanced disease, together with the role and unique benefits of robotic surgery. The surgical challenge of patients with a raised body mass index and the frail and elderly are discussed and finally the role of sentinel lymph node assessment. For cervical cancer, the role of MIS for staging and primary treatment is covered, together with the interesting and highly specialist topics of fertility-sparing treatment, ovarian transposition and the live birth rate associated with this. We end with a discussion on the evidence surrounding the role of adjuvant hysterectomy following radical chemoradiation and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer. MIS is the standard of care for endometrial cancer. The future of MIS for cervix cancer, however, remains uncertain. Current recommendations, based on the available evidence, are that the open approach should be considered the gold standard for the surgical management of early cervical cancer and that MIS should only be adopted in the context of research. Careful counselling of patients on the current evidence, discussing in detail the risks and benefits to enable them to make an informed choice, remains paramount.

Minimally invasive hysterectomy for stage IA cervical carcinoma: a survival analysis of the National Cancer Database

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for patients with stage IA cervical carcinoma undergoing hysterectomy.

METHODS

Patients with pathological stage IA (IA1, IA2, IA not otherwise specified) squamous, adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, no history of another tumor, who underwent radical or simple hysterectomy with known mode of surgery, diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 with at least 1 month of follow-up, were drawn from the National Cancer Database. Comparisons of demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were made with the χ² test. The impact of minimally invasive surgery (robotic-assisted or traditional laparoscopic) on overall survival was assessed with the log-rank test following generation of Kaplan-Meier curves. A Cox model was constructed to control for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 1930 patients were identified; the majority (73.3%, 1414 patients) had stage IA1 disease, while 458 (23.7%) patients had stage IA2, and 58 (3%) patients had stage IA not otherwise specified. In the present cohort, 685 patients (35.5%) had open, 438 patients (22.7%) had laparoscopic, and 807 patients (41.8%) had robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. Patients who had an open approach were more likely to undergo lymphadenectomy (58.1% vs 52.7%, p=0.021) and have radical hysterectomy (42% vs 32.4%, p<0.001). Patients who had minimally invasive surgery had a shorter hospital stay (median 1 vs 3 days, p<0.001). There was no difference in overall survival between patients who had open and minimally invasive hysterectomy (p=0.87); 4-year overall survival rates were 97.7% and 98.6%, respectively. There was no difference in overall survival between the open and minimally invasive surgery groups for patients who had simple (p=0.61; 4-year overall survival rates 97.6% and 98.7%, respectively) or radical hysterectomy (p=0.70; 4-year overall survival rates 97.8% and 98.4%, respectively). After controlling for patient age, tumor histology, and presence of lymphovascular invasion, minimally invasive hysterectomy was not associated with worse survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81). In a sensitivity analysis, based on 3048 patients with clinical stage IA after controlling for confounders, minimally invasive surgery was not associated with worse survival than laparotomy (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of patients with stage IA cervical carcinoma, performance of minimally invasive hysterectomy was not associated with a detrimental effect on overall survival.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre with one surgical team.

POPULATION

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

METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

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

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Objective

To quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.

Study Selection

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.

Results

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for early-stage cervical cancer after minimally invasive (MIS) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We identified studies from 1990 to 2020 that included women with stage I or higher cervical cancer treated with primary radical hysterectomy and compared recurrence and/or PFS and overall survival with MIS vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. (The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD4202173600).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

We performed random-effects meta-analyses overall and by length of follow-up. Fifty articles on 40 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial that included 22 593 women with cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria. Twenty percent of the studies had <36 months of follow-up, and 24% had more than 60 months of follow-up. The odds of PFS were worse for women undergoing MIS radical hysterectomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.24-1.94; 14 studies). When limited to studies with longer follow-up, the odds of PFS were progressively worse with MIS radical hysterectomy (HR [hazard ratio] 1.48 for >36 months; 95% CI, 1.21-1.82; 10 studies; HR 1.69 for >48 months; 95% CI, 1.26-2.27; 5 studies; and HR 2.020 for >60 months; 95% CI, 1.36-3.001; 3 studies). For overall survival, the odds were not significantly different for MIS vs abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66-1.35; 14 studies) (HR 0.99 for >36 months; 95% CI, 0.66-1.48; 9 studies; HR 1.05 for >48 months; 95% CI, 0.57-1.94; 4 studies; and HR 1.35 for >60 months; 95% CI, 0.73-2.51; 3 studies).

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis of 50 studies, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse PFS than open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The emergence of this finding with longer follow-up highlights the importance of long-term, high-quality studies to guide cancer and surgical treatments.

Increased Institutional Surgical Experience in Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Reduces Recurrence Rate: Results from a Nationwide Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of institutional surgical experience on recurrence following robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for early stage cervical cancer. All women in Sweden who underwent an RRH for stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer at tertiary referral centers from its implementation in December 2005 until June 2017 were identified using a Swedish nationwide register and local hospital registers. Registry data were controlled by a chart review of all women. Recurrence rates and patterns of recurrence were compared between early and late (≤50 vs. >50 procedures) institutional series. Six hundred and thirty-five women were included. Regression analysis identified a lower risk of recurrence with increased experience but without a clear cut off level. Among the 489 women who did not receive adjuvant radio chemotherapy (RC-T), the rate of recurrence was 3.6% in the experienced cohort (>50 procedures) compared to 9.3% in the introductory cohort (p < 0.05). This was also seen in tumors < 2 cm regardless of RC-T (p < 0.05), whereas no difference in recurrence was seen when analyzing all women receiving RC-T. In conclusion, the rate of recurrence following RRH for early stage cervical cancer decreased with increased institutional surgical experience, in tumors < 2 cm and in women who did not receive adjuvant RC-T.

Impact of the Learning Curve on the Survival of Abdominal or Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Purpose

The objective of this study was to define the learning curve required to attain satisfactory oncologic outcomes of cervical cancer patients who were undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy, and to analyze the correlation between the learning curve and tumor size.

Materials and Methods

Cervical cancer patients (stage IA–IIA) who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n=280) or minimal invasive radical hysterectomy (n=282) were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was evaluated using cumulative sum of 5-year recurrence rates. Survival outcomes were analyzed based on the operation period (“learning period,” P1 vs. “skilled period,” P2), operation mode, and tumor size.

Results

The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates between open and minimally invasive groups were 91.8% and 89.0% (p=0.098) and 96.1% and 97.2% (p=0.944), respectively. The number of surgeries for learning period was 30 and 60 in open and minimally invasive group, respectively. P2 had better 5-year disease-free survival than P1 after adjusting for risk factors (hazard ratio, 0.392; 95% confidence interval, 0.210 to 0.734; p=0.003). All patients with tumors < 2 cm had similar 5-year disease-free survival regardless of operation mode or learning curve. Minimally invasive group presented lower survival rates than open group when tumors ≥ 2 cm in P2. Preoperative conization improved disease-free survival in patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm, especially in minimally invasive group.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy required more cases than open group to achieve acceptable 5-year disease-free survival. When tumors ≥ 2 cm, the surgeon’s proficiency affected survival outcomes in both groups.

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.

Perioperative Complications and Safety Evaluation of Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy of Cervical Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Purpose

To evaluate the perioperative complications of patients with cervical cancer who are treated with robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and to further evaluate the safety of patients undergoing NACT.

Methods

A total of 805 consecutive cervical cancer patients undergoing RRH were involved in this report. Their clinical characteristics were retrieved from hospital medical records. Perioperative complications were subdivided into intraoperative and postoperative complications, which were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), and the complications of grade III and above were defined as severe complications. Furthermore, the two-level logistic regression model was used to estimate the risk factors of perioperative and severe complications and to further confirm the relationship between NACT and perioperative and severe complications.

Results

The perioperative complication rate and severe complications were 45.09% and 7.83%, respectively. Poorly differentiated tumor and NACT were identified as independent risk factors for perioperative complications by multifactor analysis. Furthermore, we concentrated on the relations between NACT and complications. The risk of perioperative complications of the group with NACT (OR = 11.08, 95% CI: 5.70-21.54) was significantly higher than the group without NACT, especially in postoperative complications (OR=17.65, 95% CI: 8.63-36.08), even after adjusting confounding factors. However, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of severe complications (OR=1.68, 95% CI: 0.64-4.41) and intraoperative complications (OR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.18-1.41). Moreover, as the times of NACT increase, the impact on perioperative complications is more pronounced. A similar trend was observed in postoperative complications, while this statistical difference was still not observed in intraoperative and severe complications.

Conclusion

This result demonstrates the feasibility and safety of RRH of cervical carcinoma after NACT in generally, since it only causes mild complications, not severe complications.

Survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer after abdominal or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a nationwide cohort study and literature review

AIM

Recently, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has been called into question in early-stage cervical cancer. This study aimed to evaluate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and LRH for early-stage cervical cancer and to provide a literature review.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2009) stage IA2 with lymphovascular space invasion, IB1 and IIA1, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox regression with propensity score, based on inverse probability treatment weighting, was applied to examine the effect of surgical approach on 5-year survival and calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Literature review included observational studies with (i) analysis on tumours ≤4 cm (ii) median follow-up ≥30 months (iii) ≥5 events per predictor parameter in multivariable analysis or a propensity score.

RESULTS

Of the 1109 patients, LRH was performed in 33%. Higher mortality (9.4% vs. 4.6%) and recurrence (13.1% vs. 7.3%) were observed in ARH than LRH. However, adjusted analyses showed similar DFS (89.4% vs. 90.2%), HR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.52-1.60]) and OS (95.2% vs. 95.5%), HR 0.94 [95% CI: 0.43-2.04]). Analyses on tumour size (<2/≥2 cm) also gave similar survival rates. Review of nine studies showed no distinct advantage of ARH, especially in tumours <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

After adjustment, our retrospective study showed equal oncological outcomes between ARH and LRH for early-stage cervical cancer - also in tumours <2 cm. This is in correspondence with results from our literature review.

Survival outcomes of single-port access laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Emerging data from the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (NCT00614211) suggested that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer is correlated with worse survival outcomes than open surgery. This finding could be attributed to the different learning curves for laparoscopic surgery among surgeons. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and survival outcomes of single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for treating early cervical cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent SPA LRH between 2009 and 2018 performed by a single surgeon with expertise in SPA laparoscopy using conventional instrumentation and a homemade glove port system.

RESULTS

Type C (93.2%) and B (6.8%) radical hysterectomy were performed in 59 women with cervical cancer classified as IA (3.4%), IB (94.9%), and IIA (1.7%). Forty-one patients (69.5%) had squamous cell carcinoma and 32 patients (52.5%) had tumors < 2 cm. The median operative time was 235 (125-382) minutes. There were no perioperative complications or cases of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications, including chylous ascites, low hemoglobin, lymphedema, and vault dehiscence, were observed in 5 patients (8.5%). Median follow-up time was 3.1 (0.6-8.6) years and 3 patients experienced recurrence (1 local and 2 distant failures). Five-year disease-free survival was 94.9% (56/59) and the 5-year overall survival rate was 98.3% (58/59).

CONCLUSIONS

SPA LRH is feasible and safe for patients with early-stage cervical cancer when performed by experienced surgeons without compromising the radicality and oncologic outcomes.

Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer - A population-based study

AIM

Lately, the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of cervical cancer (CC) has been questioned. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrence and survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for the treatment of early-stage CC in Denmark.

METHODS

Population-based data on all Danish women with early-stage CC, who underwent radical hysterectomy January 1st 2005-June 30th 2017 were retrieved from the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database and enriched with follow-up data on recurrence, death and cause of death. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the year of robotic MIS introduction at each cancer centre. Chi-squared or Fischer test, the Kaplan Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred twenty-five patients with CC were included; 530 underwent surgery before (group 1) and 595 underwent surgery after (group 2) the introduction of robotic MIS. The 5-year rate of recurrence was low: 8.2% and 6.3% (p = 0.55) in group 1 and 2, respectively. In adjusted analyses, this corresponded to a five-year disease-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.93]. No difference in site of recurrence (P = 0.19) was observed. The cumulative cancer-specific survival was 94.1% and 95.9% (P = 0.10) in group 1 and 2, respectively, corresponding to a HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32-1.11] in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort study, the Danish nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for early-stage CC was not associated with increased risk of recurrence or reduction in survival outcomes.

The institutional learning curve is associated with survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer-a retrospective study

Background

Despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, cervical cancer continues to be a significant health problem worldwide. Whereas robot-assisted surgery has advantages over the abdominal approach, and minimally invasive techniques are being used increasingly, these may be associated with a higher recurrence rate and lower overall survival than the abdominal approach. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical and survival outcomes between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH).

Methods

A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2006 to 2018 was identified. Patients with stage IA to IB cervical cancer were included and grouped: ARH vs. RRH. The RRH group was further divided into two groups based on the year of enrollment: RRH1 (2006–2012) and RRH2 (2013–2018). Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups. P-values < 0.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 310 patients were identified: 142 and 168 underwent ARH and RRH, respectively. RRH1 and RRH2 had 77 and 91 patients, respectively. Interestingly, RRH2 was more likely to have a larger tumor size (1.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7 cm, P = 0.014) and higher stage (P < 0.001) than RRH1. However, RRH2 showed significantly favorable PFS in contrast to RRH1. There was no difference between ARH and RRH2 in PFS (P = 0.629), whereas overall, the RRH group showed significantly shorter PFS than the ARH group. In the multivariate analysis, the institutional learning curve represented by the operation year was one of the significant predictors for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.065, P = 0.0162), along with tumor size (HR 5.651, P = 0.0241).

Conclusions

The institutional learning curve, represented by the operation year, is one of the most significant factors associated with outcomes of RRH for early-stage cervical cancer.

Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancer patients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival.

RESULTS

RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, RRH was not associated with decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates (HR1.688, 95% CI 0.423-6.734, p = 0.458; HR1.267, 95%CI 0.518-3.098, p = 0.604).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm.

Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial

Background

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy represents the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrate that minimally invasive surgery is inferior to laparotomy with regards to disease-free and overall survival.

Primary Objective

To investigate the oncologic safety of robot-assisted surgery for early-stage cervical cancer as compared with standard laparotomy.

Study Hypothesis

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is non-inferior to laparotomy in regards to recurrence-free survival with the advantage of fewer post-operative complications and superior patient-reported outcomes.

Trial Design

Prospective, multi-institutional, international, open-label randomized clinical trial. Consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer will be assessed for eligibility and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. Institutional review board approval will be required from all participating institutions. The trial is coordinated from Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.

Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Women over 18 with cervical cancer FIGO (2018) stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous will be included. Women are not eligible if they have evidence of metastatic disease, serious co-morbidity, or a secondary invasive neoplasm in the past 5 years.

Primary Endpoint

Recurrence-free survival at 5 years between women who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Sample Size

The clinical non-inferiority margin in this study is defined as a 5-year recurrence-free survival not worsened by >7.5%. With an expected recurrence-free survival of 85%, the study needs to observe 127 events with a one-sided level of significance (α) of 5% and a power (1−β) of 80%. With 5 years of recruitment and 3 years of follow-up, the necessary number of events will be reached if the study can recruit a total of 768 patients.

Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results

Trial launch is estimated to be May 2019 and the trial is estimated to close in May 2027 with presentation of data shortly thereafter.

Trial Registration

The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03719547).

No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after open and robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a nationwide population-based cohort study on all women with cervical cancer stage IA1-IB of squamous, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous histological subtypes, from January 2011 to December 2017, for whom radical hysterectomy was performed. The Swedish Quality Register of Gynaecologic Cancer was used for identification. To ensure quality and conformity of data and to disclose patients not yet registered, hospital registries were reviewed and validated. Cox and propensity score regression analysis and univariable and multivariable regression analysis were performed in regard to OS and DFS.

RESULTS

There were 864 women (236 open and 628 robotic) included in the study. The 5-year OS was 92% and 94% and DFS was 84% and 88% for the open and robotic cohorts, respectively. The recurrence pattern was similar in both groups. Using propensity score analysis and matched cohorts of 232 women in each surgical group, no significant differences were seen in survival: 5-year OS of 92% in both groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-2.01) and DFS of 85% vs 84% in the open and robotic cohort, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.66-1.78). In univariable and multivariable analysis with OS as the end-point, no significant factors were found, and in regard to DFS, tumour size (p < 0.001) and grade 3 (p = 0.02) were found as independent significant risk factors.

CONCLUSION

In a complete nationwide population-based cohort, where radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer is highly centralised, neither long-term survival nor pattern of recurrence differed significantly between open and robotic surgery.

Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients.

Tailoring radicality in early cervical cancer: how far can we go?

Today, the patient who is diagnosed with early cervical cancer is offered a variety of treatments apart from standard therapy. Patients can be treated with a less radical hysterectomy (RH) regarding parametrectomy, a trachelectomy either vaginal or abdominal, and this can be performed through a minimal invasive or open procedure. All this in combination with nerve sparing and/or sentinel node technique. Level 1 evidence for the oncological safety of all these modifications is only available from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two RCTs on more or less radical parametrectomy both showed that oncological safety was not compromised by doing less radical surgery. Because of the heterogeneity of the patient population and the high frequency of adjuvant radiotherapy, the true impact of surgical radicality cannot be assessed. Regarding the issue of oncological safety of fertility sparing treatments, case-control and retrospective case series suggest that trachelectomy is safe as long as the tumor diameter does not exceed 2 cm. Recently, both a RCT and 2 case-control studies showed a survival benefit for open surgery compared to minimally invasive surgery, whereas many previous case-control and retrospective case series on this subject did not show impaired oncological safety. In a case-control study the survival benefit for open surgery was restricted to the group of patients with a tumor diameter more than 2 cm. Although modifications of the traditional open RH seem safe for tumors with a diameter less than 2 cm, ongoing prospective RCTs and observational studies should give the final answer.

Introducing robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1bi cervical cancer-A prospective evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in a single UK institution

BACKGROUND

We have assessed the impact of introducing robotics for a stage 1b cervical cancer service on laparotomy rates, complications, and costs.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from 90 consecutive patients who had a radical hysterectomy between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

There were 37 women before the first robotic procedure and 53 after. The laparotomy rate reduced from 75% (9/12) in 2010 to 0% (0/18) in 2017. The length of stay reduced from 6 days (range 3-39) to 3 days (range 1-15) (P < 0.0001). The complication rate before robotics was 68% (25/37) compared with 45% (24/53) afterwards (P = 0.0493). The blood transfusion rate reduced from 43% (16/37) to 11% (6/53) (P = 0.0007). There were no differences between the total costs before and after the introduction of robotics or between each route.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, introducing robotics for cervical carcinoma reduced hospital stay and complications. No cost differences were demonstrated.

Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients.

Methods

We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients.

Results

Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups.

Conclusions

The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.