The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cost-Utility Analysis of Open Radical Hysterectomy Compared to Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of open surgery, compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, using updated survival data. Costs and utilities of each surgical approach were compared using a Markovian decision analysis model. Survival data stratified by surgical approach and surgery costs were received from recently published data. Average costs were discounted at 3%. The value of health benefits for each strategy was calculated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the formula (average cost minimal invasive surgery-average cost open surgery)/(average QALY minimal invasive surgery-average QALY open surgery), was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted for all variables. Open radical hysterectomy was found to be cost-saving compared to minimally invasive surgery with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD -66 and USD -373 for laparoscopic and robotic surgery, respectively. The most influential parameters in the model were surgery costs, followed by the disutility involved with open surgery. Until further data are generated regarding the survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery, at current pricing, open radical hysterectomy is cost-saving compared to minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, both laparoscopic and robotic.

Survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and vaginal radical hysterectomy approaches for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) (N = 32), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) (N = 61), robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) (N = 100) and vaginal radical hysterectomy (VRH) (N = 45) approaches for early-stage cervical cancer to identify the surgical approach that provides the best survival.

METHODS

Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The volume of intraoperative blood loss was greater in the ARH group than in the LRH group, the RRH group or the VRH group [(712.50 ± 407.59) vs. (224.43 ± 191.89), (109.80 ± 92.98) and (216.67 ± 176.78) ml, respectively; P < 0.001]. Total 5-year OS was significantly different among the four groups (ARH, 96.88%; LRH, 82.45%; RRH, 94.18%; VRH, 91.49%; P = 0.015). However, no significant difference in 5-year DFS was observed among the four groups (ARH, 96.88%; LRH, 81.99%; RRH, 91.38%; VRH, 87.27%; P = 0.061).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study demonstrated that ARH and RRH achieved higher 5-year OS rates than LRH for early-stage cervical cancer.

Complications of radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection for cervical cancer: a 10-year single-centre clinical observational study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The complications of radical surgery for cervical cancer can increase patient suffering and affect their quality of life. This retrospective study assessed the safety of radical hysterectomy (RH) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) by observing the complications of patients with cervical cancer who underwent this procedure in a single centre over 10 years. Our findings may provide experience and evidence for preventing and reducing complications.

METHODS

A total of 2226 cervical cancer patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All patients underwent RH + PLND. Intraoperative injury to adjacent tissues and short-term and long-term complications were recorded to analyze factors associated with the occurrence of complications.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 34.41% (766/2226) of patients, including 7.68% of patients with injury to adjacent tissues, 31.45% with short-term complications, and 2.96% with long-term complications. Age, tumor size, invasion depth, parametrial invasion, lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI), lymph node metastasis, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, and surgical procedure were closely associated with the postoperative complications of RH + PLND (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that RH + PLND for cervical cancer is safe and practical. Patients aged 40-60 years, with tumors ≥ 4 cm, invasion depth ≥ 2/3, parametrial invasion, LVSI, lymph node metastasis, FIGO stage > IB2, and who underwent open surgery were more prone to complications.

Ginsenoside Rh2 Induces HeLa Apoptosis through Upregulating Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Related and Downstream Apoptotic Gene Expression

Cervical cancer is a common gynecological malignancy afflicting women all over the world. Ginsenoside Rh2 (GRh2), especially 20(S)-GRh2, is a biologically active component in the natural plant ginseng, which can exhibit anticancer effects. Here, we aimed to investigate the effect of 20(S)-GRh2 on cervical cancer and elucidate the underlying mechanism through RNA-seq. In this study, the CCK-8 assay showed that 20(S)-GRh2 inhibited HeLa cell viability in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Caspase 3 activity and Annexin V staining results showed that 20(S)-GRh2 induced apoptosis of HeLa cells. Gene function enrichment analysis revealed that the biological process gene ontology (GO) terms were associated with the apoptotic signaling pathway. Biological process GO terms' similarity network indicated that apoptosis might be from endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERs). Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis revealed that 20(S)-GRh2 primarily modulates apoptosis pathway genes. Combined protein-protein interaction network, hub gene screening, and qPCR validation data showed that ERs-related genes (ATF4 and DDIT3) and the downstream apoptotic genes (JUN, FOS, BBC3, and PMAIP1) were potential novel targets of 20(S)-GRh2-inducing cervical cancer cell apoptosis. Differential transcript usage analysis indicated that DDIT3 is also a differential transcript and its usage of the isoform (ENST00000552740.5) was reduced by 20(S)-GRh2. Molecular docking suggested that 20(S)-GRh2 binds to the targets (ATF4, DDIT3, JUN, FOS, BBC3, and PMAIP1) with high affinity. In conclusion, our findings indicated that 20(S)-GRh2 might promote ERs-related apoptosis of cervical cancer cells by regulating the DDIT3-based targets' signal pathway. The role of 20(S)-GRh2 at the transcriptome level provides novel targets and evidence for the treatment of cervical cancer.

Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019

Background and Objectives: A great debate within the academic arena was evoked by the LACC study, giving rise to doubt regarding the oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for early-stage cervical cancer. This encouraged us to conduct a retrospective analysis of CC treatment surgical approaches applied to the patients at tertiary level Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics, Vilnius, Lithuania, between 2009 and 2019. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study was carried out to evaluate the outcomes after 28 laparoscopic and 62 laparotomic radical hysterectomies for early cervical cancer in a single tertiary care institution performed during the period 2009–2019. For statistical analysis of patients’ parameters, SPSS v. 17.0 was applied, together with the Kaplan–Meier method with a long-rank test and the Cox proportional hazard regression model used for bi-variate analysis determining OS outcomes between MIS and open-surgery groups. Results: After computing data with the Cox regression model, there was no significant difference of the 36-months overall survival between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups, as opposed to the LACC study. Conclusions: Our tertiary institution faces a considerable challenge, and we acknowledge the limitations of the study and also feel a responsibility to follow the latest guidelines. Currently, it appears that the most substantial attention should be focused on the cessation of uterine manipulator use as well as laparoscopic technique learning curves.

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.