Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

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.

Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer

Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.

An optimized robotic surgical technique for cervical cancer: investigating whether the use of the pulling robotic arm has better surgical outcomes

Objective

The evidence for adopting the 3^rd robotic arm (RA) called the pulling RA rather than a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in the robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer is still limited. We present a single-center retrospective experience comparing using the pulling RA to replace a uterine manipulator vs. using a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in RRH.

Methods

106 patients diagnosed with IA, IB1-IB2 and IIA1 cervical cancer were retrospectively included for intraoperative and postoperative parameters analysis. 50 patients received RRH by adopting the pulling RA instead of a uterine manipulator to pull the uterus (3-RA RRH group), and another 56 patients were performed RRH with a uterine manipulator (2-RA RRH group). RRH with the pulling RA consisted of a camera arm, 3 RAs including a pulling RA, and 2 conventional assistant arms (3-RA RRH group). In comparison, RRH with a uterine manipulator included 2 RAs and 2 conventional assistant arms (2-RA RRH group). Besides, 3-RA' RRH group was selected from the 25^th-50^th cases in the 3-RA RRH group based on the learning curve and was compared with the 2-RA RRH group in terms of intraoperative and postoperative parameters.

Results

The patients' early post-operative complication (≤7 days) (p=0.022) and post-operative anemia (p < 0.001) of the 3-RA RRH were significantly lower than that in the 2-RA RRH group. The results of comparing the 2-RA RRH group with the 3-RA' RRH group were consistent with the aforementioned results, except for the operative time (220.4 vs. 197.4 minutes, p=0.022) and hospital stay (7.8 vs. 8.7 days, p=0.034). The median follow-up in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 29 and 50 months till March 2023. The 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups' recurrence rates were 2% (1/50) and 5.4% (3/56), respectively. The mortality in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 2% (1/50) and 3.5% (2/56), respectively.

Conclusion

Our study suggested that replacing the uterine manipulator via the 3^rd RA is viable; the results showed comparable surgical outcomes between the two methods. Thus, 3-RA RRH could be considered a well-executed surgical option in well-selected patients.

Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare between cohorts. Within the total cohort, 238/1696 (14%) had no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen (122 MIS, 103 AH, and 13 VLH). The majority of cases in the cohort were FIGO 2018 stage IB1 (43.7%) and underwent a radical hysterectomy (81.9%). There was no statistical difference between stage, histology, and radical vs simple hysterectomy between the abdominal and minimally invasive groups. There were no significant differences in RFS (5-year: MIS/LVH 97.7%, AH 95.8%, p = 0.23) or OS (5-year: MIS/VLH 98.9%, AH 97.4%, p = 0.10), although event-rates were low. There were only two recurrences. In this large study including only patients with no residual cervical cancer on hysterectomy specimen, no significant differences in survival were seen by surgical approach. This may be due to the small number of events or due to no actual difference between the groups. Further studies are warranted.