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

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: The more experienced the bedside assistant, the better?

Background

Aim to investigate the impact of bedside assistant's work experience and learning curve on the short-term safety and efficacy in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

Our research retrospectively retrieved 120 cases of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. According to the different work experiences of the two bedside assistants (BA), patients were divided into a research group (inexperienced BA 1) and a control group (experienced BA 2). Furthermore, the learning curves of these BAs were plotted separately and divided into two distinct phases by cumulative summation: the first learning phase and the second master phase.

Result

In terms of work experience, comparing BA 1 with BA 2 who was more experienced, although the average operative time was prolonged by 29 min (P＜0.001), it did not increase the incidence of operative complication [24.4 % VS 29.1 %, P = 0.583], positive resection margin [4.9 % VS 7.6 %, P = 0.714], intraoperative organ damage [0 % VS 2.5 %, P = 0.546] and there was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes [19 VS 15, P = 0.103]. Additionally, comparing two distinct phases of the same bedside assistant, there was no significant increasing rate in terms of operative complication, positive resection margin, intraoperative organ damage, and the number of lymph nodes (P＞0.05) neither BA 1 nor BA 2, except for a slight extension of operative time about 20 min in learning phase (P＜0.05).

Conclusion

In robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, work inexperience and the learning phase of BA only result in a slight extension of operative time, without causing worse short-term surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in FIGO 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma: Long-term survival outcomes after propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in mainland China (Four C) database, the medical records of 1098 patients with FIGO 2018 early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term and short-term survival outcomes of the two groups were compared using a multivariate Cox regression model and the log-rank method in the whole study population and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

There was no difference in disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.921, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.532-1.595, p = 0.770) and overall survival (HR 1.168, 95% CI: 0.526-2.592, p = 0.702) between LRH (n = 468) and ORH (n = 468) in the risk-adjusted analysis. LRH resulted in significantly lower estimated blood loss (342.7 vs. 157.5 mL, p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (2.8 vs. 2.5 days, p < 0.001) in risk-adjusted analysis. The overall rates of intraoperative complications (2.4% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.100) and postoperative complications (7.5% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.437) showed no significant difference between the two groups. However, the LRH group had a significantly higher incidence of ureter injury (0.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.012) and great vessel injury (0.0% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045) compared to the other group. No statistical variation in the site of recurrence was observed between the two groups (p = 0.613).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has comparable survival outcomes with ORH and was associated with earlier recovery in FIGO 2018 early-stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. However, the LRH group had higher risk of ureter injury and great vessel injury.

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.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

The MEDLINE (accessed through Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from inception up to April 2022. Articles published in English were considered. The included studies reported on patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA-IIA squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and/or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix who underwent primary surgery. Studies had to report at least one case of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a recurrence pattern, and only studies comparing recurrence after minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery were considered. Variables of interest were manually extracted into a standardized electronic database. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325068).

RESULTS

The initial search identified 518 articles. After the removal of the duplicate entries from the initial search, two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the remaining 453 articles. Finally, 78 articles were selected for full-text evaluation; 22 articles (a total of 7626 patients) were included in the analysis-one randomized controlled trial and 21 observational retrospective studies. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in 60.9%, and the tumor size was <4 cm in 92.8% of patients. Peritoneal carcinomatosis pattern represented 22.2% of recurrences in the minimally invasive surgery approach versus 8.8% in open surgery, accounting for 15.5% of all recurrences. The meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with open surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been used for cervical cancer treatment. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LRH and ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer to provide reliable evidence to the clinical cervical cancer treatment.

METHODS

Two investigators independently searched PubMed and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LRH and ARH for cervical cancer treatment up to May 31, 2022. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane library was used for quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with a total of 1700 patients with cervical cancer were finally included. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with ARH, LRH reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]=-58.08; 95% CI, -70.91, -45.24), the time to first passage of flatus (MD=-14.50; 95% CI, -16.55, -12.44) (all P <0.05), and increase the number of lymph nodes removed (MD=3.47; 95% CI, 0.51, 6.43; P =0.02). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery (MD=27.62; 95% CI, -6.26, 61.49), intraoperative complications (odd ratio [OR]=1.10; 95% CI, 0.17, 7.32), postoperative complications (OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.33, 1.86), relapse rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 0.56, 3.74), and survival rate (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.08) between LRH group and ARH group (all P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH has more advantages over ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer. Still, the long-term effects and safety of LRH and ARH need more high-quality, large-sample RCTs to be further verified.

Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Radical hysterectomy and plus pelvic node dissection are the primary methods of treatment for patients with early stage cervical cancer. During the last decade, growing evidence has supported the adoption of a minimally invasive approach. Retrospective data suggested that minimally invasive surgery improves perioperative outcomes, without neglecting long-term oncologic outcomes. In 2018, the guidelines from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology stated that a "minimally invasive approach is favored" in comparison with open surgery. However, the phase III, randomized Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial questioned the safety of the minimally invasive approach. The LACC trial highlighted that the execution of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy correlates with an increased risk of recurrence and death. After its publication, other retrospective studies investigated this issue, with differing results. Recent evidence suggested that robotic-assisted surgery is not associated with an increased risk of worse oncologic outcomes. The phase III randomized Robotic-assisted Approach to Cervical Cancer (RACC) and the Robotic Versus Open Hysterectomy Surgery in Cervix Cancer (ROCC) trials will clarify the pros and cons of performing a robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (with tumor containment before colpotomy) in early stage cervical cancer.

Safety and efficacy of a modified technique of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

AIM

Objective to investigate the feasibility, safety, and short-term efficacy of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without uterine lifter combined with self-locking nylon band.

METHODS

The clinical data of 152 patients who underwent a laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in the Department of gynecology and oncology of Changzhou maternal and child health hospital from January 2017 to June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively, including 97 patients who used uterine lifter (traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy) and 55 patients who underwent operation without uterine lifter but combining with self-locking nylon band (modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy). The differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, the width of excised parauterine tissue, the length of the excised vaginal wall, postoperative pathology and short-term prognosis between the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, the width of parauterine tissue, and the length of the vaginal wall (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, pelvic lymph node metastasis rate and depth of cervical interstitial infiltration between the two groups (p > 0.05), the infiltration rate of lymphatic vascular space in the traditional group was higher than that in the improved group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without uterine lifter combining with a self-locking nylon band to seal the vaginal wall. The uterine lifter may lead to lymphatic vascular space infiltration of tumor cells.

The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy compromised oncologic outcomes and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in early-stage cervical carcinoma. We sought to assess oncologic outcomes at multiple centers between minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy and OPEN radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

This is a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of patients with 2009 FIGO stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion) to IB1 cervical carcinoma from 1/2007-12/2016. Patients who underwent preoperative therapy were excluded. Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinomas were included. Appropriate statistical tests were used.

RESULTS

We identified 1093 cases for analysis-715 MIS (558 robotic [78%]) and 378. OPEN procedures. The OPEN cohort had more patients with tumors >2 cm, residual disease in the hysterectomy specimen, and more likely to have had adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up for the MIS and OPEN cohorts were 38.5 months (range, 0.03-149.51) and 54.98 months (range, 0.03-145.20), respectively. Three-year PFS rates were 87.9% (95% CI: 84.9-90.4%) and 89% (95% CI: 84.9-92%), respectively (P = 0.6). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for recurrence/death was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.47-1.03; P = 0.07). Three-year OS rates were 95.8% (95% CI: 93.6-97.2%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.8-98.2%), respectively (P = 0.8). On multivariate analysis, the adjusted HR for death was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-1.52; P = 0.5).

CONCLUSION

This multi-institutional analysis showed that an MIS compared to OPEN radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes, with similar PFS and OS.