Uterine cervical cancer volumetry using T2- and diffusion-weighted MR images in patients treated by primary surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy

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

OBJECTIVE

There is recent evidence that demonstrates worse oncologic outcomes associated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy when compared with open radical hysterectomy, particularly in patients with tumors >2 cm. The aim of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO) 2009 stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed to identify patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open radical hysterectomy during January 2010 and December 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed cervical cancer including all histological types; (2) FIGO 2009 stage IB1; (3) tumor size ≤2 cm (determined by pelvic examination, magnetic resonance imaging or transvaginal ultrasound); (4) had undergone radical hysterectomy (type II or III) with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy as primary surgical treatment; (5) had follow-up information. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA1 or IA2, tumor size >2 cm, or who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, those with cervical cancer incidentally found after simple hysterectomy, or with insufficient data were excluded. Concurrent comparison between the laparoscopic and open cohorts was made for disease-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 325 cervical cancer patients were included; of these, 129 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 196 patients had open surgery. The median follow-up times were 51.8 months (range 2-115) for laparoscopic surgery and 49.5 months (range 3-108) for open surgery. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival than those in the open group (90.4% vs 97.7%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in 5 year overall survival between groups (96.9% vs 99.4%, p=0.33). The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower disease-free survival compared with open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 4.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 17.06; p=0.02). In patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or with grade II-III, laparoscopic surgery had a significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival compared with the open surgery group (74% vs 100%, p=0.01, and 88.8% vs 98.0%, p=0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with worse disease-free survival for stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm compared with open radical hysterectomy. Further studies may shed additional light on the impact of minimally invasive surgery in this low-risk patient population.

Staging early cervical cancer in China: data from a multicenter collaborative

BACKGROUND

In 2018 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised the staging system of cervical cancer. This study aimed to assess the quality of staging early cervical cancer in China before the revision.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 34 tertiary hospitals in China. Medical records of patients with cervical cancer who underwent primary surgical treatment between January 2010 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were clinically staged according to the 2009 FIGO staging system. Eligibility criteria included: histopathologically confirmed cervical cancer; 2009 FIGO stage IA-IIA2 based on 2009 FIGO staging system; primary surgical treatment including extrafascial, type II or type III radical hysterectomy; radical trachelectomy; with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy; regardless of surgical route via laparotomy or laparoscopy; and complete clinical and pathological data. Patients who received non-surgical treatment, neoadjuvant treatment, or those with incomplete data were excluded. The accuracy of clinical staging was assessed by comparison between clinical and pathologic stage using the latter as the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 23 933 cases of cervical cancer were identified and 12 681 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 69.6% were staged accurately, 9.4% were clinically understaged, and 21.0% were clinically overstaged. The accuracy of stage IA, IB1, IB2, IIA1, and IIA2 was 90.0%, 87.5%, 57.4%, 20.3%, and 25.5%, respectively. The causes of stage inaccuracy were as follows: vaginal involvement (62.3%), maximal tumor diameter (24.6%), extent of cervical stromal invasion (7.1%), parametrial invasion (5.8%), bladder or rectal infiltration (0.1%), and distant metastases (0.1%).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of staging early cervical cancer in China was suboptimal before the revision of the staging system, especially for IIA1 and IIA2. The most common reasons for staging inaccuracy were vaginal involvement and tumor diameter.