Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China

Oncologic outcomes after Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) or treatment according to current international guidelines in FIGO (2009) stages IB1-IIB cervical cancer: an observational cohort study

Background

According to international guidelines, standard treatment (ST) with curative intent in cervical cancer (CC) comprises radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stages (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 IB1, IIA1), adjuvant chemoradiation is recommended based on risk factors upon final pathology. Definitive chemoradiation is recommended in locally advanced stages (FIGO 2009 IB2, IIA2, IIB). Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) with therapeutic lymph node dissection (tLND) without adjuvant radiation has emerged as a promising treatment. Here we compare oncologic outcome by TMMR + tLND or ST.

Methods

In this observational cohort study, women treated according to international guidelines were identified in the population-based registries from Sweden and women treated with TMMR were identified in the Leipzig Mesometrial Resection (MMR) Study Database (DRKS 0001517) 2011-2020. Relevant clinical and tumour related variables were extracted. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) by ST or TMMR was analysed with log-rank test, cumulative incidence function and proportional hazard regression yielding hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for relevant confounders.

Findings

Between 2011 and 2020, 1007 women were included in the final analysis. 733 women were treated according to ST and 274 with TMMR. RFS at five years was 77.9% (95% CI 74.3-81.1) and 82.6% (95% CI 77.2-86.9) for the ST and TMMR cohorts respectively (p = 0.053). In early-stage CC, RFS was higher after TMMR as compared to ST, 91.2% vs 81.8% (p = 0.002). In the adjusted analysis, TMMR was associated with a lower hazard of recurrence (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.22-0.69) and death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.86) compared to ST. The absolute difference in risk of recurrence at 5 years was 9.4% (95% CI 3.2-15.7) in favor of TMMR. In locally advanced CC, no significant differences in RFS or OS was observed.

Interpretation

Compared to ST, TMMR without radiation therapy was associated with superior oncologic outcomes in women with early-stage cervical cancer whereas no difference was observed in locally advanced disease. Our findings together with previous evidence suggest that TMMR may be considered the primary option for both early-stage and locally advanced cervical cancer confined to the Müllerian compartment.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland (Sweden) and Region Stockholm (Sweden).

Controversies in the Surgical Management of Gynecologic Cancer: Balancing the Decision to Operate or Hesitate

Cancer outcomes are largely measured in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival, which is highly dependent on timely diagnosis and access to treatment methods available within the country's existing health care system. Although cancer survival rates have markedly led in the past few decades, any improvement in the 5-year survival of gynecologic cancers has been modest, as in the case of ovarian and cervical cancers, or has declined, as in the case of endometrial cancer. The lack of effective screening options contributes to many women presenting with advanced-stage disease and the need for radical approaches to treatment. Although treatment for early-stage disease can lead to a cure, advanced-stage disease is fraught with a high potential for morbidity and mortality, and recent clinical trials have aimed to assess the noninferiority of minimally invasive options versus aggressive surgical approaches. Of particular interest is fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial and cervical cancers, which have recently been on the rise among younger women. Balancing morbidity with the risk of mortality, and loss of fertility and quality of life requires a targeted patient-centered approach to treatment. This is an ongoing area of intense research and sometimes may challenge current treatment paradigms. In this two-part review, we present an overview of current approaches to gynecologic cancer treatment and the need to de-escalate radical surgical approaches and preserve fertility. We also review the intricacies of ovarian and advanced endometrial cancer treatment, exploring the nuances in surgical debulking timing and its impact on outcomes.

A retrospective study of the effects of uterine manipulators on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study investigated the effects of uterine manipulator use during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy on prognosis in patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

We collected clinical data on 762 patients with stage IA2 to IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2009 to 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 5-year overall survival rates between patients treated with and without a uterine manipulator.

RESULTS

Patient demographics did not differ between the two groups. In addition, the incidence of lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, pathologic types, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, the histologic grade, and the rate of lymphatic metastases did not differ between the groups. Meanwhile, perioperative clinical indicators were similar in the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences in 5-year survival rates and survival curves were recorded between the groups among both all patients (84.5% vs. 85.6%) and early-stage patients (89.1% vs. 89.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of uterine manipulators during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not affect clinicopathological markers or increase the risk of death.

Practice patterns and complications of hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial

BACKGROUND

After the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, the standard surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer is open radical hysterectomy. Only limited data were available regarding whether the change to open abdominal hysterectomy observed after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial led to an increase in postoperative complication rates as a consequence of the decrease in the use of the minimally invasive approach.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze whether there was a correlation between the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and an increase in the 30-day complications associated with surgical treatment of invasive cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were used to compare the results in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2016 to December 2017) vs the results in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (January 2019 to December 2020). The rates of each surgical approach (open abdominal or minimally invasive) hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer during the 2 periods were assessed. Subsequently, 30-day major complication, minor complication, unplanned hospital readmission, and intra- or postoperative transfusion rates before and after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 3024 patients undergoing either open abdominal hysterectomy or minimally invasive hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer were included in the study. Of the patients, 1515 (50.1%) were treated in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, and 1509 (49.9%) were treated in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period. The rate of minimally invasive approaches decreased significantly from 75.6% (1145/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 41.1% (620/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period, whereas the rate of open abdominal approach increased from 24.4% (370/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 58.9% (889/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (P<.001). The overall 30-day major complications remained stable between the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (85/1515 [5.6%]) and the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (74/1509 [4.9%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.17). The overall 30-day minor complications were similar in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (103/1515 [6.8%]) vs the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (120/1509 [8.0%]) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.55). The unplanned hospital readmission rate remained stable during the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (7.9% per 30 person-days) and during the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (6.3% per 30 person-days) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.04)]. The intra- and postoperative transfusion rates increased significantly from 3.8% (58/1515) in the pre-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period to 6.7% (101/1509) in the post-Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer period (adjusted odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.53).

CONCLUSION

This study observed a significant shift in the surgical approach for invasive cervical cancer after the publication of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, with a reduction in the minimally invasive abdominal approach and an increase in the open abdominal approach. The change in surgical approach was not associated with an increase in the rate of 30-day major or minor complications and unplanned hospital readmission, although it was associated with an increase in the transfusion rate.

Predictive modeling of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction: the role of serum bilirubin, sodium levels, and surgical duration in gynecological cancer care

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the role of preoperative serum bilirubin and sodium levels, along with the duration of surgery, in predicting postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD) following gynecological cancer surgery, informing tailored perioperative strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 281 patients undergoing gynecological cancer surgery between 2018 and 2023. This analysis focused on preoperative serum bilirubin and sodium levels and intraoperative factors (surgical duration) as potential predictors of POGD. Logistic regression models were utilized for analysis, controlling for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Elevated preoperative serum bilirubin was associated with a reduced risk of POGD (mean level in non-POGD cases: 14.172 ± 4.0701, vs. POGD cases: 9.6429 ± 3.5351; p <  0.001), suggesting a protective role. Lower preoperative sodium levels were identified in the POGD group (136.26 mEq/L [IQR: 135.2-137.63]) compared to the non-POGD group (139.32 mEq/L [IQR: 137.7-140.75]; p <  0.001), highlighting its predictive value. Additionally, longer surgical duration was associated with increased POGD incidence, with POGD cases experiencing surgeries lasting 6.1547 ± 1.9426 hours compared to 4.5959 ± 1.5475 hours in non-POGD cases (p <  0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the importance of serum bilirubin, sodium levels, and surgical duration as significant predictors of POGD in patients undergoing gynecological cancer surgery. These indicators should be integrated into a predictive model, aiding clinicians in identifying high-risk patients, allowing for personalized perioperative care adjustments, potentially mitigating POGD risks.

Robotic surgery in Gynecology: the present and the future

Since its introduction, laparoscopic surgery has been often preferred over open surgery in obstetrics and gynecology due to its advantages, such as less bleeding, lower incidence of adhesions, reduced postoperative pain, short hospital stay, and quick return to daily life. However, in the case of complex surgeries, laparoscopy presented some limitations. Nonetheless, since the 1980s, medical robots have been introduced to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy and start a new age for minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we explore the indications and advantages and disadvantages of robotic surgery in the field of gynecology, and try to assess the recent trend of robotic surgery.

The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.

RESULTS

Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).

Does the Use of a Uterine Manipulator or Intracorporeal Colpotomy Confer an Inferior Prognosis in Minimally Invasive Surgery-Treated Early-stage Cervical Cancer?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To identify whether the use of a uterine manipulator (UM) or intracorporeal colpotomy conferred inferior short-term survival among patients treated for early-stage cervical cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary university-based hospital.

PATIENTS

1169 patients with stage IB1 to IB2 cervical cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1169 patients diagnosed with preoperative stage IB1 to IB2 cervical cancer were primarily treated with surgery from 2018 to 2019. The eligible patients had a median age of 48 years (range, 23-76 years), and the median follow-up time was 34 months (range, 3.57-50.87 months). The 2-year overall survival rate of the patients with pathologic stage IB1 and IB2 was 99.8% and 98.8%, respectively, according to the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system. Univariable analysis revealed that the UM group had a 7.6-times higher risk of death than that of the manipulator-free group (p = .006), but multivariable analysis clarified that only tumor size (p = .016; hazard ratio, 2.285; 95% confidence interval, 1.166-4.479) and parametrial involvement (p = .003; hazard ratio, 3.556; 95% confidence interval, 1.549-8.166) were independent risk factors for overall survival. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients who underwent intracorporeal and protective colpotomy.

CONCLUSION

Short-term survival outcomes in women undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer did not differ when a UM was avoided or when a protective colpotomy was performed.

Role of laparoscopic hysterectomy in cervical and endometrial cancer: a narrative review

Endometrial cancer is the most common carcinoma of the female genital organs and cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. The aim of this review is to evaluate the role of laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer in this period, and analyze the outcome of hysterectomy in terms of survival. Moreover, we present the historical background, new techniques, the anatomical features, and surgical steps of radical hysterectomy. According to new evidence, minimally invasive surgery in patients with cervical cancer is associated with higher rates of recurrence and mortality compared to the open approach. Despite the numerous explanations offered for this phenomenon, the reasons for these results are unclear. Additional large trials have been launched to reevaluate the above-mentioned data. On contrary, the laparoscopic approach provides surgical outcomes and similar survival rates as open surgery in patients with early endometrial carcinoma. Furthermore, the radicality of hysterectomy does not influence local recurrence rates or overall survival in cases with complete surgical removal of the tumor. A laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is no longer an option in patients with cervical cancer. When minimally invasive surgery is offered, the patients must be counseled in detail about the current debate.

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.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I2 = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I2 = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

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.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for Minimal Invasive Surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

19 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3196 patiets were included for the review. Meta-analysis of 1988 0f them highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.8 [95% CI 0.55-1.16] p = 0.24; I² = 0%; p = 0.98). OS was feasible only for 4 studies (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.23-3.02] p = 0.79; I² = 0 p = 0.44). Sub-analysis for tumor with a maximum diameter greater than 2 cm was performed. Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

Safety and efficacy study of laparoscopic or robotic radical surgery using an endoscopic stapler for inhibiting tumour spillage of cervical malignant neoplasms evaluating survival (SOLUTION): a multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial protocol

Background

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database study demonstrated that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was inferior to abdominal radical hysterectomy in terms of disease recurrence and survival. Among risk factors related to poor prognosis after minimally invasive surgery (MIS), tumour spillage during intracorporeal colpotomy became a significant issue. Thus, we designed this trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using an endoscopic stapler for early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

This trial is a prospective, multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, non-inferiority phase II study. The nine organisations will participate in this trial after the approval of the institutional review board. Major eligibility criteria include women aged 20 years or older with cervical cancer stage IB1 squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma according to the revised 2009 FIGO staging system who will undergo type B2 or C hysterectomy by MIS. The primary endpoint is the 4.5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate between abdominal radical hysterectomy and MIS using an endoscopic stapler. For calculating the sample size, we hypothesised that the 4.5-year DFS rate after MIS using an endoscopic stapler is assumed to be the same after abdominal radical hysterectomy at 90.9%, and the non-inferiority margin was 7.2%. When we consider a three-year accrual and 4.5-year follow-up, at least 13 events must happen, requiring a total of 111 patients assuming a statistical power of 80% and the one-tailed test of 5% significance. A total of 124 patients is needed, considering a drop-out rate of 10%.

Discussion

We expect intracorporeal colpotomy using an endoscopic stapler may prevent tumour spillage during MIS for stage IB1 cervical cancer, showing a comparable prognosis with abdominal radical surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04370496; registration date, May 2020.

Optimization of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Stacking-Integrated Machine Learning Algorithm Based on Demographic, Behavioral, and Clinical Factors

PURPOSE

The purpose is to accurately identify women at high risk of developing cervical cancer so as to optimize cervical screening strategies and make better use of medical resources. However, the predictive models currently in use require clinical physiological and biochemical indicators, resulting in a smaller scope of application. Stacking-integrated machine learning (SIML) is an advanced machine learning technique that combined multiple learning algorithms to improve predictive performance. This study aimed to develop a stacking-integrated model that can be used to identify women at high risk of developing cervical cancer based on their demographic, behavioral, and historical clinical factors.

METHODS

The data of 858 women screened for cervical cancer at a Venezuelan Hospital were used to develop the SIML algorithm. The screening data were randomly split into training data (80%) that were used to develop the algorithm and testing data (20%) that were used to validate the accuracy of the algorithms. The random forest (RF) model and univariate logistic regression were used to identify predictive features for developing cervical cancer. Twelve well-known ML algorithms were selected, and their performances in predicting cervical cancer were compared. A correlation coefficient matrix was used to cluster the models based on their performance. The SIML was then developed using the best-performing techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of all models were calculated.

RESULTS

The RF model identified 18 features predictive of developing cervical cancer. The use of hormonal contraceptives was considered as the most important risk factor, followed by the number of pregnancies, years of smoking, and the number of sexual partners. The SIML algorithm had the best overall performance when compared with other methods and reached an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.877, 81.8%, and 81.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that SIML can be used to accurately identify women at high risk of developing cervical cancer. This model could be used to personalize the screening program by optimizing the screening interval and care plan in high- and low-risk patients based on their demographics, behavioral patterns, and clinical data.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

Quality of training in cervical cancer radical surgery: a survey from the European Network of Young Gynaecologic Oncologists (ENYGO)

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and partners are committed to improving the training for gynecologic oncology fellows. The aim of this survey was to assess the type and level of training in cervical cancer surgery and to investigate whether the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial results impacted training in radical surgery for gynecologic oncology fellows.

METHODS

In June 2020, a 47-question electronic survey was shared with European Network of Young Gynaecologic Oncologists (ENYGO) members. Specialist fellows in obstetrics and gynecology, and gynecologic oncology, from high- and low-volume centers, who started training between January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2020 or started before January 1, 2017 but finished their training at least 6 months after the LACC trial publication (October 2018), were included.

RESULTS

81 of 125 (64.8%) respondents were included. The median time from the start of the fellowship to completion of the survey was 28 months (range 6-48). 56 (69.1%) respondents were still fellows-in-training. 6 of 56 (10.7%) and 14 of 25 (56.0%) respondents who were still in training and completed the fellowship, respectively, performed ≥10 radical hysterectomies during their training. Fellows trained in an ESGO accredited center had a higher chance to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy (60.4% vs 30.3%; p=0.027). There was no difference in the mean number of radical hysterectomies performed by fellows during fellowship before and after the LACC trial publication (8±12.0 vs 7±8.4, respectively; p=0.46). A significant reduction in number of minimally invasive radical hysterectomies was noted when comparing the period before and after the LACC trial (38.5% vs 13.8%, respectively; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Exposure to radical surgery for cervical cancer among gynecologic oncology fellows is low. Centralization of cervical cancer cases to high-volume centers may provide an increase in fellows' exposure to radical procedures. The LACC trial publication was associated with a decrease in minimally invasive radical hysterectomies performed by fellows.

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.

Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 update

Since the publication of the 2018 FIGO Cancer Report, giant strides have been made in the global effort to reduce the burden of cervical cancer, with the World Health Organization (WHO) rolling out a global strategy for cervical cancer elimination, aiming for implementation by 2030. In over 130 countries, including low- and middle-income countries, HPV vaccination is now included in the national program. Screening has seen major advances with wider implementation of HPV testing. These interventions will take a few years to show their impact. Meanwhile, over half a million new cases are added each year. FIGO's revised staging of cervical cancer (2018) has been widely implemented and retrospective analyses of data based on the new staging have been published. Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to be disadvantageous in women with cervical cancer. This chapter discusses the management of cervical cancer based on the stage of disease, including attention to palliation and quality of life issues.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 (FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the HR for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with weighted Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 1379 patients were included in the final analysis, with 681 (49.4%) operated by laparoscopy and 698 (50.6%) by laparotomy. There were no differences regarding the surgical approach in the rates of positive vaginal margins, deep stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion. Median follow-up was 52.1 months (range, 0.8-201.2) in the laparoscopic group and 52.6 months (range, 0.4-166.6) in the laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a lower rate of disease-free survival compared with the laparotomy group (4-year rate, 88.7% vs 93.0%; HR for recurrence or death from cervical cancer 1.64; 95% CI 1.09-2.46; P=0.02). In sensitivity analyzes, after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy was associated with increased hazards of recurrence or death from cervical cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.57; P=0.01) and death for any cause (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05-4.37; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective multicenter study, laparoscopy was associated with worse disease-free survival, compared to laparotomy.

Surgical Approach and Use of Uterine Manipulator Are Not Associated with LVSI in Surgery for Early-stage Cervical Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In 2018, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial reported that patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer (CC) had poorer outcomes than patients undergoing open surgery. Several hypotheses have been made to explain the results. We aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic procedures and use of a uterine manipulator increase the risk of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in early-stage CC.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

A Chinese women's and children's hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with early-stage CC who underwent radical hysterectomy in West China Second University Hospital between April 2019 and May 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic surgery (with uterine manipulator and uterine manipulator-free) and open surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 979 patients diagnosed with CC were registered in West China Second University Hospital for surgical treatment. Of these, 525 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 454 patients underwent open surgery. In total, 735 patients with early-stage cancer underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, including 357 by laparoscopic surgery and 378 by open surgery. For those who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, the incidence of LVSI was 48.41% and 47.34% in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = .771). After 1:1 propensity score matching with age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, pathology, and tumor size, the incidence of LVSI was 45.54% and 51.79% in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = .186). Subdividing the laparoscopic group into uterine manipulator and uterine manipulator-free groups, the incidence of LVSI was 45.22% and 48.35%, respectively (p = .580). After propensity score matching with age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, pathology, and tumor size, the incidence of LVSI was 45.78% and 55.42% in these 2 groups, respectively (p = .214). Multiple factor analysis revealed that lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion were associated with LVSI (p value <.05 in both groups).

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach and use of a uterine manipulator are not associated with LVSI in surgery for early-stage CC. Lymph node metastasis and deep stromal invasion are associated with LVSI.

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.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?

Objectives

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with decreased survival in patients with early cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of an intra-uterine manipulator at the time of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy is associated with inferior oncologic outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was carried out of all patients with cervical cancer (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion) to IIA who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at two academic centers between January 2007 and December 2017. Treatment, tumor characteristics, and survival data were retrieved from hospital records.

Results

A total of 224 patients were identified at the two centers; 115 had surgery with the use of an intra-uterine manipulator while 109 did not; 53 were robotic and 171 were laparoscopic. Median age was 44 years (range 38–54) and median body mass index was 25.8 kg/m2 (range 16.6–51.5). Patients in whom an intra-uterine manipulator was not used at the time of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were more likely to have residual disease at hysterectomy (p<0.001), positive lymphovascular space invasion (p=0.02), positive margins (p=0.008), and positive lymph node metastasis (p=0.003). Recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 80% in the no intra-uterine manipulator group and 94% in the intra-uterine manipulator group. After controlling for the presence of residual cancer at hysterectomy, tumor size and high-risk pathologic criteria (positive margins, parametria or lymph nodes), the use of an intra-uterine manipulator was no longer significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0, p=0.05). The only factor which was consistently associated with recurrence-free survival was tumor size (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.0, for every 10 mm increase, p<0.001).

Conclusion

After controlling for adverse pathological factors, the use of an intra-uterine manipulator in patients with early cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was not an independent factor associated with rate of recurrence.

Radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: what shall we do after the LACC trial?

Surgical treatment of cervical cancer has led to one of the greatest controversies in gynecological oncology in recent years. After laparoscopic radical hysterectomy became increasingly widespread worldwide, it lost its importance dramatically when the data from the LACC study were published. In contrast to previous assumptions, there was a significantly reduced survival after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to the open abdominal procedure. Multiple studies were subsequently published. Some confirm these results some do not. Some consider further studies to be unethical, others point to their own non-randomized results and call for a new LACC study. This article gives an overview of the current data situation and the possible criticisms of the individual studies. And, finally, calls for new RCT's under defined criteria.

Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the potential reasons are unclear.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Each expert from 28 study centres participating in a previously reported randomised controlled trial (NCT03739944) will provide successive eligible records of at least 100 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. Inclusion criteria consist of a definite pathological evaluation of stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 and IB1 according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system and a histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma. The primary endpoint is 5-year disease-free survival between the MIRH and ARH groups. The secondary endpoints include the MIRH learning curves of participating surgeons, 5-year overall survival between the MIRH and ARH groups, survival outcomes according to surgical chronology, surgical outcomes and sites of recurrence and potential risk factors that affect survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis in patients with tumour diameter less than 2 cm will follow the similar flow diagram.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (registration no. JS-1711), and is also filed on record by all other 27 centres. The results will be disseminated through community events and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03738969.

SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse.

METHODS

We obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group.

RESULTS

Mean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m² (range; 15-49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.

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.

Surgical Management of Early Cervical Cancer: When Is Laparoscopic Appropriate?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper reviews the recent literature data on minimally invasive surgical approach to early cervical cancer compared to abdominal approach, with the aim of evaluate the oncological outcomes and the appropriateness of current indications.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial and a concurrent large epidemiological study, contrary to the previous retrospective data, showed that minimally invasive surgery is associated with significantly poorer survival than the open approach. Open surgery is to be considered the standard of care for early cervical cancer as implemented in the current guidelines, and the patients must be carefully counseled if minimally invasive surgery is offered. Minimally invasive surgery can be considered safe only for sentinel lymph node mapping in a fertility-sparing setting and could be considered after preoperative conization and for small tumors, adopting preventive surgical maneuvers and in reference centers. However, prospective evidences about the suggested indications are not yet available.