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

A comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery in patients with specific locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB3, IIA2, IIICr): trial protocol for a randomized controlled study (C-CRAL trial)

BACKGROUND

At present, clinical dilemma remains to be solved in terms of therapy-choices for specific locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients: 1) Although concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is recommended as the first choice for them, many patients, influenced by the Chinese culture, prefer to choose radical surgery (RS) as their primary treatment. The difference between the 2 therapies in improving patient prognosis is still unknown. 2) Laparoscopy has been questioned since the noted Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial. Nevertheless, clinical research on laparoscopic surgery under the strict tumor-free principle is still underway globally, therefore whether laparoscopic surgery can be used for specific LACC is also an urgent issue to be explored.

METHODS

A multi-center, randomized controlled study is designed to investigate the effect of different treatment strategies on the prognosis and quality of life (QoL) in patients with specific locally LACC. A total of 402 patients will be enrolled over a period of 3 years. Eligible patients will be randomized (3:1) to either RS group or CCRT group. Patients assigned to RS group will be randomized (1:2) to the abdominal RS group or laparoscopic RS group. All patients will then be followed-up for 5 years. The primary end point is the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end points include 5-year PFS, 2-year overall survival (OS), 5-year OS, adverse events caused by RS or CCRT and QoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000041315.

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has been reported to be similar oncologic outcome compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in many retrospective studies. In Japan, LRH has been covered by insurance since April 2018. In 2018, the same year that LRH became covered by insurance, Ramirez et al. at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported the results of a large phase III laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial (LACC trial) on the prognosis of open versus laparoscopic/robot-assisted minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. The results showed that minimally invasive approaches were associated with a higher rate of recurrence and death. At this point, it is not clear what is wrong with LRH and why it has a poorer prognosis compared to ARH. In this report, after the LACC report, we would like to review the current status of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer and future directions.

Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been used for cervical cancer treatment. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LRH and ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer to provide reliable evidence to the clinical cervical cancer treatment.

METHODS

Two investigators independently searched PubMed and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LRH and ARH for cervical cancer treatment up to May 31, 2022. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane library was used for quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with a total of 1700 patients with cervical cancer were finally included. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with ARH, LRH reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]=-58.08; 95% CI, -70.91, -45.24), the time to first passage of flatus (MD=-14.50; 95% CI, -16.55, -12.44) (all P <0.05), and increase the number of lymph nodes removed (MD=3.47; 95% CI, 0.51, 6.43; P =0.02). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery (MD=27.62; 95% CI, -6.26, 61.49), intraoperative complications (odd ratio [OR]=1.10; 95% CI, 0.17, 7.32), postoperative complications (OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.33, 1.86), relapse rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 0.56, 3.74), and survival rate (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.08) between LRH group and ARH group (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has more advantages over ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer. Still, the long-term effects and safety of LRH and ARH need more high-quality, large-sample RCTs to be further verified.