Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm

Comparison of outcomes of laparotomic and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the outcomes of laparotomic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MISRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent LRH or MISRH (laparoscopic/robotic) at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, from 2002 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical safety (operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of postoperative stay, and perioperative complications), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence pattern were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a 3:1 ratio was performed to balance prognostic variables.

RESULTS

Of the 760 patients (entire cohort), 614 underwent LRH and 146 underwent MISRH. After PSM, 394 and 140 patients were included in the LRH and MISRH groups, respectively. The 5-year OS rate was significantly lower in the MISRH group than in the LRH group (85.6% vs. 93.2%, p=0.043), and the 5-year DFS rate (p=0.21) did not differ significantly. After PSM, the 5-year OS rates did not differ significantly between the MISRH and LRH groups (87.1% vs. 92.1%, p=0.393). The MISRH group had a significantly shorter operation time (p<0.001), lower intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p<0.001), and shorter postoperative stay (p<0.001) but a significantly higher rate of intraoperative bladder injury (p<0.001) than the LRH group.

CONCLUSION

After PSM, MISRH is associated with nonsignificantly lower OS but a significantly higher risk of intraoperative urological complications than LRH.

Evaluating the effectiveness of early urethral catheter removal combined with intermittent catheterization for promoting early recovery of bladder function after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bladder dysfunction, notably urinary retention, emerges as a significant complication for cervical cancer patients following radical hysterectomy, predominantly due to nerve damage, severely impacting their postoperative quality of life. The challenges to recovery include insufficient pelvic floor muscle training and the negative effects of prolonged postoperative indwelling urinary catheters. Intermittent catheterization represents the gold standard for neurogenic bladder management, facilitating bladder training, which is an important behavioral therapy aiming to enhance bladder function through the training of the external urethral sphincter and promoting the recovery of the micturition reflex. Nevertheless, gaps remain in current research regarding optimal timing for intermittent catheterization and the evaluation of subjective symptoms of bladder dysfunction.

METHODS

Cervical cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy will be recruited to this randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomly assigned to either early postoperative catheter removal combined with intermittent catheterization group or a control group receiving standard care with indwelling urinary catheters. All these patients will be followed for 3 months after surgery. The study's primary endpoint is the comparison of bladder function recovery rates (defined as achieving a Bladder Function Recovery Grade of II or higher) 2 weeks post-surgery. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of urinary tract infections, and changes in urodynamic parameters, and Mesure Du Handicap Urinaire scores within 1 month postoperatively. All analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this trial are expected to refine clinical management strategies for enhancing postoperative recovery among cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. By providing robust evidence, this study aims to support patients and their families in informed decision-making regarding postoperative bladder management, potentially reducing the incidence of urinary complications and improving overall quality of life post-surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2200064041, registered on 24th September, 2022.

Radical Hysterectomy With Preoperative Conization in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The investigation of the role of preoperative conization in cervical cancer aiming to explore its potential clinical significance.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science, up to April 28, 2023.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

(1) Observational cohort studies, (2) studies comparing radical hysterectomy with preoperative conization (CO) vs radical hysterectomy without preoperative conization (NCO) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing disease-free survival outcomes.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The meta-analysis used combined hazard ratios along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals to compare CO and NCO. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to compare minimally invasive CO, open CO, minimally invasive NCO, and open NCO. Our study included 15 retrospective trials, 10 of which were used to traditional pairwise meta-analysis and 8 for network meta-analysis. The NCO group exhibited a notably higher probability of cancer recurrence than the CO group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.65). In the network meta-analysis, minimally invasive NCO showed the worst survival outcome.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative conization seems to be a protective factor in decreasing recurrence risk, assisting clinicians in predicting survival outcomes for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. It may potentially aid in selecting suitable candidates for minimally invasive surgery in clinical practice.

Analysis of Risk Factors of Postoperative Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Cervical Cancer

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has a significant negative impact on surgical and tumor patient's safety and quality of life. There was no specific report on the incidence and risk factors of postoperative lower extremity DVT in cervical cancer patients. Analysis of the risk factors of postoperative DVT in patients with cervical cancer is of great clinical significance for prevention and treatment. We retrospectively analyzed 309 cervical cancer patients treated by the Hubei Cervical Cancer Prevention Center and used a logistic regression model to test the risk variables of postoperative lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in cervical cancer patients. By univariate analyses, the results of the study showed that the incidence of postoperative DVT was significantly increased in cervical cancer patients complicated with old age, obesity, high preoperative plasma D-dimer level, increased preoperative triglyceride level, chronic diseases (hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease), open surgery, long operation time, intraoperative blood transfusion, advanced tumor stage, and preoperative chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Advanced age, obesity, elevated preoperative D-dimer level, high preoperative triglyceride level, and open surgery were independent risk factors for postoperative lower extremity DVT in patients with cervical cancer by multivariate regression analyses (all P < .05). In gynecologic patients with cervical cancer, there is a high incidence of postoperative lower extremity DVT. Clinicians should develop systematic and comprehensive prevention and treatment measures for the risk factors to lower this morbidity and improve patient prognosis.

Is minimally invasive radical surgery safe for patients with cervical cancer ≤2 cm in size? (MISAFE): Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators coLLborAtion study (GORILLA-1003)

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinicopathological factors associated with disease recurrence for patients with 2018 FIGO stage IA with lymphovascular invasion to IB1 cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

METHODS

A total of 722 patients with cervical cancer between January 2010 and February 2021 were identified. Clinicopathological factors related to disease recurrence were analyzed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. To determine prognostic factors for DFS, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.

RESULTS

Of 722 patients, 49 (6.8%) experienced disease recurrence (37 pelvis, 1 para-aortic lymph node, and 11 peritoneum). Five-year DFS and OS rates were 90.7% and 98.1%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, risk factors associated with disease recurrence were residual disease in the remaining cervix (OR, 3.122; 95% CI, 1.152-8.461; p = 0.025), intracorporeal colpotomy (OR, 3.252; 95% CI, 1.507-7.017; p = 0.003), and positive resection margin (OR, 3.078; 95% CI, 1.031-9.193; p = 0.044). The non-conization group had a higher percentage of stage IB1 (77.4% vs. 64.6%; p = 0.004) and larger tumor (10 mm vs. 7 mm; p < 0.001) than the conization group. Intracorporeal colpotomy and residual disease in the remaining cervix were independent variables associated with disease recurrence in patients undergoing MIS following conization.

CONCLUSION

During MIS, patients with cervical cancer ≤2 cm in size can be vulnerable to peritoneal recurrences. Patients diagnosed with invasive cancer through conization often have low-risk pathological features, which may affect their survival outcomes.

Survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer with incidentally identified high-risk factors

OBJECTIVE

Previously, we suggested that patients with cervical cancer (CC) with tumors ≤2 cm on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are safe candidates for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Here, we aim to investigate whether LRH deteriorates the prognosis of patients with incidentally identified high-risk factors; lymph node metastasis (LNM) or parametrial invasion (PMI).

METHODS

We identified patients with 2009 FIGO stage IB1 CC who underwent Type C LRH or open radical hysterectomy (ORH) at three tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2019. Those with a tumor ≤2 cm on preoperative MRI who were not suspicious of LNM or PMI preoperatively were included, while those who were indicated to receive adjuvant treatment but did not actually receive it were excluded. Survival outcomes were compared between the LRH and ORH groups in the overall population, then narrowed down to those with LNM, and then to those with PMI.

RESULTS

In total, 498 patients were included: 299 in the LRH group and 199 in the ORH group. The LRH and ORH groups showed similar 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (94.0% vs. 93.6%; P = 0.615) and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates (97.2% vs. 96.8%; P = 0.439). On pathologic examination, 49 (9.8%) and 16 (3.2%) patients had LNM and PMI, respectively, and 10 (2.0%) had both. In the LNM subgroup, 5-year PFS rate was not significantly different between the LRH and ORH groups (73.2% vs. 91.7%; P = 0.169). In the PMI subgroup, no difference in PFS was observed between the two groups (P = 0.893).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH might not deteriorate recurrence and mortality rates in CC patients with tumors ≤2 cm when adjuvant treatment is appropriately administered, even if pathologic LNM and PMI are incidentally identified.

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

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

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.

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.

Outcomes of open radical hysterectomy following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program

OBJECTIVE

Open surgery has become the standard approach for radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion-IIA1). Our primary objective was to compare the length of stay in patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy before and after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

METHODS

This was a single center, retrospective, before-and-after intervention study including patients who underwent open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from January 2009 to December 2020. Two groups were identified based on the time of ERAS implementation: pre-ERAS group included patients who were operated on between January 2009 and October 2014; post-ERAS group included patients who underwent surgery between November 2014 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included, of whom 29 patients were in the pre-ERAS group and 52 patients in the post-ERAS group. Both groups had similar clinical characteristics with no differences in terms of median age (42 years (interquartile range (IQR) 35-53) in pre-ERAS group vs 41 years (IQR 35-49) in post-ERAS group; p=0.47) and body mass index (26.1 kg/m² (IQR 24.6-29.7) in pre-ERAS group vs 27.1 kg/m² (IQR 23.5-33.5) in post-ERAS group; p=0.44). Patients in the post-ERAS group were discharged from the hospital earlier compared with those in the pre-ERAS group (median 3 days (IQR 2-3) vs 4 (IQR 3-4), p<0.01). The proportion of patients discharged within 48 hours was significantly higher in the post-ERAS group (47.3% vs 17.3%, p=0.013). There were no differences regarding either overall complications (44.8% pre-ERAS vs 38.5% post-ERAS; p=0.57) or readmission rates within 30 days (20.7% pre-ERAS group vs 17.3% ERAS group; p=0.40). Adherence to the ERAS pathway since its implementation in 2014 has remained stable with a median of 70% (IQR 65%-75%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing open radical hysterectomy on an ERAS pathway have a shorter length of hospital stay without increasing overall complications or readmissions rates.

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.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) emerged as the mainstay in the surgical management of cervical cancer, bringing advantages such as lower operative morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes in numerous retrospective studies. However, in 2018, a prospective phase III randomized controlled trial, “Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix (LACC)”, unexpectedly reported that MIS was associated with a statistically significant poorer overall survival and disease-free survival compared to open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Various hypotheses have been raised by the authors to try to explain these results, but the LACC trial was not powered to answer those questions. In this study, through an exhaustive literature review, we wish to explore some of the potential causes that may explain the poorer oncologic outcomes associated with MIS, including the type of MIS surgery, the size of the lesion, the impact of CO2 pneumoperitoneum, prior conization, the use of uterine manipulator, the use of protective measures, and the effect of surgical expertise/learning curve.

Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

We aimed to compare the prognosis of modified no‐touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) on survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

The clinicopathological data of patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer, who underwent radical surgery between 2014 and 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. The 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the MLRH and LRH groups using the Kaplan–Meier method. Independent prognostic factors for 5‐year DFS and OS were identified using multivariate, forward, stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

A total of 223 patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer were included. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that the 5‐year DFS and OS rates in the MLRH (n = 81) group were significantly higher than those in the LRH group (n = 142) (DFS, 94.5% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.007; OS, 96.7% vs. 87.6%, p = 0.033). No significant differences were identified between the two groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. MLRH was an independent prognostic factor associated with increased 5‐year DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.202; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.069–0.594; p = 0.004) and 5‐year OS (adjusted HR, 0.163; 95% CI, 0.035–0.748; p = 0.020).

Conclusion

The oncologic outcomes were superior with MLRH than with LRH in patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer. Contact of cervical tumor cells with the pelvic cavity likely explains the worse prognosis associated with LRH.

Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Literature Review

Simple Summary

Despite being a preventable disease, cervical cancer still causes morbidity and deaths worldwide. In the early stages (FIGO IA1 with lymph-vascular space invasion-IIA1), the disease is highly curable. The primary treatment for early-stage cervical cancer is radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. This surgical treatment has changed during the past decades, and we aimed to review and discuss the advances in the literature. We performed a literature review through PubMed focusing on English articles about the topic of surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. The emergent topics considered here are the FIGO 2018 staging system update, conservative management for selected patients, sentinel lymph node mapping, fertility preservation, surgical approach, and management of tumors up to 2 cm. These topics show an evolvement to a more tailored treatment to prevent morbidity and assure oncologic safety.

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) remains a public health issue worldwide despite preventive measures. Surgical treatment in the early-stage CC has evolved during the last decades. Our aim was to review the advances in the literature and summarize the ongoing studies on this topic. To this end, we conducted a literature review through PubMed focusing on English-language articles on the surgical management of early-stage CC. The emergent topics considered here are the FIGO 2018 staging system update, conservative management with less radical procedures for selected patients, lymph node staging, fertility preservation, preferred surgical approach, management of tumors up to 2 cm, and prognosis. In terms of updating FIGO, we highlight the inclusion of lymph node status on staging and the possibility of imaging. Regarding the preferred surgical approach, we emphasize the LACC trial impact worldwide in favor of open surgery; however, we discuss the controversial application of this for tumors < 2 cm. In summary, all topics show a tendency to provide patients with tailored treatment that avoids morbidity while maintaining oncologic safety, which is already possible in high-income countries. We believe that efforts should focus on making this a reality for low-income countries as well.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Results

This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, p=0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, p=0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, p=0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, p=0.041).

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

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.

SUCCOR cone study: conization before radical hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score.

RESULTS

We obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death.

Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have undergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with different surgical approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2.

RESULTS

The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602-1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467-1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331-1.407; p = 0.630), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment.

The prognostic factors in 384 patients with FIGO 2014 stage IB cervical cancer: What is the role of tumor size on prognosis?

OBJECTIVE

To define the relationship of tumor size with surgico-pathological factors and oncological outcome in FIGO 2014 stage IB cervical cancer.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated 384 FIGO 2014 Stage IB cervical cancer patients who underwent radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. Tumor size was stratified according to 2 cm (≤ 2cm, 2-≤4 cm, >4 cm) and 4 cm (≤4 cm, >4 cm), and the relationship with poor prognostic factors, and the effects on survival were examined. The distribution of prognostic factors was compared between three subgroups: ≤2 cm vs. 2-≤4 cm; 2-≤4 cm vs. > 4 cm and ≤ 2 cm vs. > 4 cm. Survival rate was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards regression.

RESULTS

Stratification of tumor size according to 4 cm was found to better determine pelvic lymph node determination. Parametrial involvement, uterine involvement and deep cervical stromal invasion were correlated with increasing tumor size. Lymph node involvement and uterine involvement were an independent prognostic risk factor for recurrence and cancer-specific survival. Tumor size showed no association with prognosis.

CONCLUSION

There is no meaningful cut-off value for tumor size determining all surgico-pathological factors. There was also seen to be no association between tumor size and recurrence or disease-related mortality.

Current evidence on laparoscopic vs. open resection for gastric stromal tumours

Although the use of laparoscopic surgery is increasing, controversy still surrounds its application for malignant conditions. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are less demanding in terms of lymphadenectomy, meaning that laparoscopic resection might have a more defined benefit when compared with open resection. To the best of our knowledge, no randomized study exists that compares the laparoscopic and open resection of GISTs. The current study aimed to examine the relevant literature by means of a systematic review. A systematic literature search was performed individually by two authors, in which three independent databases were searched using specific search-terms. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened, as well as references to relevant articles, in order to comprise a comprehensive list of studies. Data were extracted using a detailed pre-agreed spreadsheet. Studies were evaluated according to the modified MINORS criteria. A total of 10 studies were included in the present review, yielding a total of 14 entries. The majority of studies reported significantly improved perioperative outcomes for the laparoscopic approach, including improved duration of operation, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Only four studies reported long-term outcomes and findings that were controversial, with some studies detecting no statistically significant differences, one reporting improved and one reporting worse disease-free and overall survival for the laparoscopic group. Three studies were deemed to be good quality, two of which had not reported significantly different long-term outcomes, while the third had reported significantly improved outcomes in the open resection group. While there is a clear benefit for performing laparoscopic surgery in patients with GIST with regards to perioperative outcomes, when it comes to long-term oncological outcomes, uncertainty over its application remains. The lack of randomized trials, as well as the poor reporting of retrospective studies, limits the amount of evidence that is currently available. Laparoscopic surgery for GIST is certainly safe, feasible and likely cost-effective; however, further studies are required to inform on whether this technique is superior to open resection.

Incidence, Treatment and Outcomes of Cervical Cancer in Low- and Middle-income Countries

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in developing nations. It has had a tremendous impact on the lifetime of millions of women over the last century and continues to do so. In this collaborative clinicians' review, we highlight the incidence, treatment and clinical outcomes of cervical cancer in low-income (LICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across Asia, South America, South Africa and Eastern Europe. With the cervical cancer burden and locally advanced cancers being high, the majority of LICs/LMICs have been striving to adhere to optimal evaluation and treatment guidelines. However, the huge gap in resource availability, rural versus urban disparity and access to resources have led to poor compliance to evaluation, treatment and post-treatment rehabilitation. To mitigate the overwhelming numbers, various treatment strategies like neoadjuvant chemotherapy, hypofractionation radiation schedules (both external and brachytherapy) have been attempted with no major success. Also, the compliance to concurrent chemoradiation in various regions is a major challenge. With the burden of advanced cancers, the lack of palliative care services and their integration in cancer care is still a reality.

Minimally invasive surgery and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare risk of recurrence and death related to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.

METHODS

All relevant literatures in databases were retrieved from the built time of databases to October 2020. Observational studies comparing MIS and ARH in early-stage CC patients were involved. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, including studies with a score of at least 6. Main outcomes involved overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were involved, including 14 894 patients, among which 7213 (48.6%) underwent MIS. The OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.43) and DFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07-1.42) of patients undergoing MIS was obviously shortened compared with those of patients undergoing ARH. Subgroup analysis revealed that OS (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.74) and DFS (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.74) of patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter were significantly reduced by MIS.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and DFS after MIS for early-stage CC treatment were worse than those after ARH, especially for patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter.

Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), with a focus on recurrence patterns, tumor sizes, and conization.

METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective study consisted of stage IA1-IB1 (FIGO 2009) squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2000 and 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 582 patients included, 353 (60.7%) underwent ARH, and 229 (39.3%) MIRH. The median follow-up was 14.4 years in the ARH group and 6.1 years in the MIRH group (p < 0.0001). Among the 96 stage IA patients, only 3 (3.1%) experienced recurrence. Among stage IB1 patients, the risk of recurrence, after adjusting for standard prognostic variables, was twofold higher in the MIRH group versus the ARH group (HR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.56-4.80), and the relative difference was similar in terms of risk of cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.28-7.20) and overall survival (OS) (HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.21-4.59). In stage IB1 ≤ 2 cm patients without conization MIRH was associated with reduced time to recurrence (TTR) (HR 4.00, 95% CI: 1.67-9.57), CSS (HR 3.71, 95% CI: 1.19-11.58) and OS (HR 3.02, 95% CI: 1.24-7.34). Intraperitoneal combined recurrences accounted for 12 of 30 (40.0%) recurrences in the MIRH group but were not identified after ARH (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH was associated with reduced TTR, CSS and OS versus ARH in stage IB1 CC patients. The risk of peritoneal recurrence was high, even for tumors ≤2 cm without conization.

Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm who underwent open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

The Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web-of-Science databases were queried from inception to January 2021 (PROSPERO CRD 42020207971). Observational studies reporting progression-free survival and/or overall survival for patients who had open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm were selected. Level of statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I² statistic. A random-effects model was used to compare progression and overall survival between the two groups and HR with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the Der Simonian and Laird approach. Risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included encompassing 4935 patients. Of these, 2394 (48.5%) patients had minimally invasive and 2541 (51.5%) patients had open radical hysterectomy; respectively. Patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy had worse progression-free survival than those who had open surgery (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20, 2.36, I² 26%). Based on five studies, patients who had minimally invasive (n=1808) hysterectomy had a trend towards worse overall survival than those who had open surgery (n=1853) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68, I² 15%).

CONCLUSION

Based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies that control for confounders, for patients with cervical cancer and tumor size <2 cm, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival than laparotomy.

Observational BGOG Study of the Results of Robot-assisted Laparoscopy in 166 Patients with FIGO 2009 Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Two recent studies (the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer [LACC] trial and a cohort study based on the National Cancer Database) raise the question of whether minimally invasive surgery (conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy) is inferior to open abdominal surgery in early-stage cervical cancer. In the laparotomy group of the LACC trial, the low rates of recurrence and death are notable. The present study wants to elucidate the current situation of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy in hospitals of the Belgium and Luxembourg Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG).

DESIGN

This is a prospective follow-up study.

SETTING

The combined data obtained from different BGOG hospitals were analyzed regarding patients similar to those included in the LACC trial in terms of cervical cancer recurrence and survival.

PATIENTS

We included patients with stage IA1, IA2, or IB1 cervical cancer with a histologic subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients were treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The outcomes were disease-free and overall survival at 3 and 5 years after surgery. A total of 270 patients were included, and 166 were found suitable for analysis. The median age was 45 years. Most patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IB1 cervical cancer (84.9%) and squamous cell carcinoma as the histologic subtype (71.7%). The median follow-up time was 44 months, with a range of between 1 and 131 months. Twenty-one recurrences and 12 deaths were noted. Of the deaths, 8 were related to cervical cancer. Disease-free survival was 86% at 3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.52-90.80) and 85% at 5 years (95% CI, 77.03-89.95). Overall survival was 96% at 3 years (95% CI, 90.11-98.22) and 91% at 5 years (95% CI, 82.54 95.17).

CONCLUSION

The results of this BGOG study show disease-free and overall survival rates after robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer that are at least similar to previous reported recurrence and survival data. We expect that the results of the Robot-assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer trial will elucidate the place of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Clinical features and prognostic factors of cervical villoglandular adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Villoglandular adenocarcinoma is a rare sub-type of cervical adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinicopathological features and evaluate the prognosis of patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma of the cervix.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, procedure, pathology, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively reviewed in patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma between November 2006 and June 2019 from multiple centers in China. In order to explore the difference between villoglandular adenocarcinoma and routine adenocarcinoma, patients (FIGO 2009 stage IA1-IB2) who had complete data during the same time period were included.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma and 104 with standard adenocarcinoma were included. The median age of the patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma was 42 years (range 27-68). The most common 2009 FIGO stage was IB1 in 39 (65%) patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma. A total of 23 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (two total hysterectomies, 21 radical hysterectomies) and the other 37 patients underwent laparotomy (three total hysterectomies, 34 radical hysterectomies). A total of 56 patients underwent lymphadenectomy and three (5.4%) had positive lymph nodes. Fifteen (25%) patients had one or both ovaries preserved. Seven patients were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up time for the entire group was 50.2 months (range 5.1-154.6). No deaths or recurrences occurred. Excluding six patients with FIGO 2009 stage II, the 5-year disease-free survival of the 47 patients with villoglandular adenocarcinoma with FIGO 2009 stage I for whom there was follow-up, was significantly higher than that of the 104 patients with standard cervical adenocarcinoma (100% vs 92.2%, log-rank p=0.039). However, the 5-year overall survival of the two groups did not differ (100% vs 95.7%, log-rank p=0.11).

CONCLUSION

Villoglandular adenocarcinoma has a favorable prognosis. Further studies are needed to provide more details of treatment strategies and prognosis.

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.

Postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Bladder dysfunction is a common complication following radical hysterectomy, caused by the damage to pelvic autonomic nerves that innervate the muscles of the bladder, urethral sphincter, and pelvic floor fasciae. Bladder dysfunction increases the rates of urinary tract infection, hospital visits or admission, and patient dissatisfaction. In addition, bladder dysfunction can also negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL). Several postoperative interventions have been proposed to prevent bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy. To our knowledge, there has been no systematic review evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer (stage IA2 to IIA2).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2020), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2020, week 16). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of any type of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following a radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgments on the quality and certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third review author. Outcomes of interest consisted of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after the operation, quality of life (QoL), adverse events, post-void residual urine volume one month after the operation, urinary tract infection over the one month following the operation, and subjective urinary symptoms.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 1464 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 20 records that potentially met the review criteria, we included five reports of four studies. Most of the studies had unclear risks of selection and reporting biases. Of the four studies, one compared bethanechol versus placebo and three studies compared suprapubic catheterisation with intermittent self-catheterisation. We identified two ongoing studies. Bethanechol versus placebo The study reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week following the operation, QoL, adverse events, urinary tract infection in the first month after surgery, and subjective urinary symptoms for this comparison. The volume of post-void residual urine, assessed at one month after surgery, among women receiving bethanechol was lower than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -37.4 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.35 to -14.45; one study, 39 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Suprapubic catheterisation versus intermittent self-catheterisation The studies reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week and post-void residual urine volume at one month following the operation for this comparison. There was no difference in risks of acute complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49; one study, 71 participants; very low certainty evidence) and urinary tract infections during the first month after surgery (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.13; two studies, 95 participants; very- low certainty evidence) between participants who underwent suprapubic catheterisation and those who underwent intermittent self-catheterisation. Available data were insufficient to calculate the relative measures of the effect of interventions on QoL and subjective urinary symptoms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the included studies reported rate of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after surgery, time to a post-void residual volume of urine of 50 mL or less, or post-void residual urine volume at 6 and 12 months after surgery, all of which are important outcomes for assessing postoperative bladder dysfunction. Limited evidence suggested that bethanechol may minimise the risk of bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy by lowering post-void residual urine volume. The certainty of this evidence, however, was very low. The effectiveness of different types of postoperative urinary catheterisation (suprapubic and intermittent self-catheterisation) remain unproven.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19-1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31-1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).

Risk Factors for Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Simple Summary

In 239 women with early-stage cervical cancer (≤IB1 or IIA1, FIGO 2009) undergoing robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in Spanish and Portuguese centers between 2009 and 2018, the overall survival rate was 94.1% after a median follow-up of 51 months. Recurrence was diagnosed in 26 patients. In the multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for recurrence were tumor size > 20 mm, adenocarcinoma as histological type, presence of positive pelvic lymph nodes, tumor grades 2 and 3, and not performing sentinel lymph node biopsy. The present oncological and surgical results surpassed the target of quality indicators in cervical cancer proposed by the European Society of Gynecology Oncology. When selecting a robot-assisted surgical approach to perform radical hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of primary early-stage cervical cancer, it is recommended to take into account the tumor grade and histological type, results of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, and the size of the tumor.

Abstract

This retrospective analysis aimed to assess the risk factors for recurrence in patients diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (≤IB1 or IIA1, FIGO 2009) undergoing robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in Spain and Portugal between 2009 and 2018. A second primary objective was to audit the oncological outcomes according to quality indicators (QI) proposed by the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO). The study population included 239 women. After a median follow-up of 51 months, recurrence occurred in 26 patients (10.9%). Independent factors for recurrence were clinical tumor size > 20 mm (hazard ratio (HR) 2.37), adenocarcinoma as histological type (HR 2.51), positive pelvic lymph nodes (HR 4.83), tumor grade 2 (HR 4.99), tumor grade 3 (HR 8.06), and having not performed sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) (HR 4.08). All 5 QI selected were surpassed by our results. In patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, clinicians should be aware that tumor grade 2 and 3, tumor size > 20 mm, adenocarcinoma, positive pelvic nodes, and lack of performance of SLNB are risk factors for recurrence. Fulfillment of QI targets of the ESGO might be considered as an objective oncological outcome indicator supporting the minimally invasive approach for early-stage cervical cancer treatment.

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.

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.