SUCCOR Risk: Design and Validation of a Recurrence Prediction Index for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

MRI radiomics nomogram integrating postoperative adjuvant treatments in recurrence risk prediction for patients with early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Adjuvant treatments are valuable to decrease the recurrence rate and improve survival for early-stage cervical cancer patients (ESCC), Therefore, recurrence risk evaluation is critical for the choice of postoperative treatment. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based radiomics nomogram integrating postoperative adjuvant treatments was constructed and validated externally to improve the recurrence risk prediction for ESCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

212 ESCC patients underwent surgery and adjuvant treatments from three centers were enrolled and divided into the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts. Their clinical data, pretreatment T2-weighted images (T2WI) were retrieved and analyzed. Radiomics models were constructed using machine learning methods with features extracted and screen from sagittal and axial T2WI. A nomogram for recurrence prediction was build and evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis integrating radiomic signature and adjuvant treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 8 radiomic features were screened out of 1020 extracted features. The extreme gradient boosting (XGboost) model based on MRI radiomic features performed best in recurrence prediction with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.833, 0.822 in the internal and external validation cohorts, respectively. The nomogram integrating radiomic signature and clinical factors achieved an AUC of 0.806, 0.718 in the internal and external validation cohorts, respectively, for recurrence risk prediction for ESCC.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the nomogram integrating T2WI radiomic signature and clinical factors is valuable to predict the recurrence risk, thereby allowing timely planning for effective treatments for ESCC with high risk of recurrence.

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.

Effect of preoperative cervical conization before hysterectomy on survival and recurrence of patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Conization plays a therapeutic and diagnostic role in cervical cancer. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with cervical cancer who underwent hysterectomy with versus without preoperative cervical conization.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed studies published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and Clinical Trials. gov that appeared in our search from inception to May 1, 2022.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 4184 participants were included in this review. There were 2122 patients in the preoperative conization group and 2062 patients in the non-conization group. The meta-analysis showed that disease free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.12-0.44; 1616 participants; P = 0.030) and overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.33-0.86; 1835 participants; P = 0.597) were improved in the preoperative conization group compared with those in the non-conization group. The risk for recurrence was lower in the preoperative conization group than in the non-conization group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48; 1099 participants; P = 0.434). There was no significant statistical difference regarding intraoperative adverse events (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.18-3.70; 530 participants; P = 0.555) and postoperative adverse events (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.54-2.85; 530 participants; P = 0.170) between the preoperative conization group and non-conization group. In subgroup analysis, patients who benefited more from preoperative conization, had underwent minimally invasive surgery, had smaller local tumor lesions, and had no lymph node involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative conization before radical hysterectomy may have a protective effect in the treatment of early cervical cancer, with better survival and less recurrence, especially when the patient is at an early stage and undergoes minimally invasive surgery.

Conization before radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A Korean multicenter study (COBRA-R)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of conization on survival outcomes and to identify a specific population that might benefit from conization before radical hysterectomy (RH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

From six institutions in Korea, we identified node-negative, margin-negative, parametria-negative, 2009 FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer patients who underwent primary type C RH between 2006 and 2021. The patients were divided into multiple groups based on tumor size, surgical approach, and histology. We performed a series of independent 1:1 propensity score matching and compared the survival outcomes between the conization and non-conization groups.

RESULTS

In total, 1254 patients were included: conization (n = 355) and non-conization (n = 899). Among the matched patients with a tumor size of >2 cm, the conization group showed a significantly better 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate compared with the non-conization group when RH was conducted via minimally invasive surgery (MIS), in those with squamous cell carcinoma (96.3% vs. 87.4%, P = 0.007) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (97.0% vs. 74.8%, P = 0.021). However, no difference in DFS was observed between the two groups among the matched patients with a tumor size of ≤2 cm, regardless of surgical approach or histological type. In patients who underwent MIS RH, DFS significantly worsened as the residual tumor size increased (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Cervical conization was associated with a lower recurrence rate in patients with early-stage cervical cancer with a tumor size of >2 cm who underwent primary MIS RH. Cervical conization may be performed prior to MIS RH to minimize the uterine residual tumor.

Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events of Remimazolam versus Propofol During Cervical Conization: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the cardiopulmonary safety of remimazolam and propofol in patients undergoing cervical conization.

Methods

This was a single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled study. A total of 204 patients scheduled for day surgery of cold knife cervical conization received either remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia (remimazolam group) or propofol-alfentanil anesthesia (propofol group). The primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events (a composite outcome of hypotension, bradycardia and hypoxemia). The occurrence of hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia and the degree of body movement were secondary outcomes, as well as the moment at which consciousness was lost, the interval between the end of anesthesia and the operating room's release of the patient, and the overall dosage of alfentanil administered during the procedure.

Results

The incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events was 45 (44.1%) in the remimazolam group and 72 (70.6%) in the propofol group (absolute risk difference [95% CI], -26.47% [-39.55% to -13.39%]; odds ratio (OR) [95% CI], 0.43 [0.28 to 0.65]; P < 0.001). The remimazolam group showed lower incidences of hypotension and hypoxemia compared to the propofol group (P = 0.01 for both). No significant differences were observed in the overall alfentanil dosages administered, bradycardia, bodily movement, or time to losing consciousness between the two groups.

Conclusion

In patients who underwent cold knife cervical conization, remimazolam-alfentanil anesthesia was associated with a reduced incidence of intraoperative cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with propofol-alfentanil anesthesia.

The Role of Conization before Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer including High Risk Factors of Recurrence: Propensity Score Matching

We primarily aimed to investigate the therapeutic role of conization prior to radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Secondarily, we aimed to characterize a subgroup of patients who could potentially benefit from preoperative conization. Patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for FIGO 2009 stage IB1 to IIB cervical cancer from 1995 to 2020 were eligible. The patients were divided into two groups: those with and without preoperative conization. To adjust for the baseline characteristics of the two groups, 1:2 case−control propensity score matching was conducted. Survival analysis was performed between the two groups. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the effect of conization based on clinical and pathological factors. Patients who underwent preoperative conization showed better 5-year overall survival than those who did not (95.9% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.029); however, no difference was observed in progression-free survival (88.9% vs. 85.9%, p = 0.155). In multivariate Cox analysis, conization showed a 55% reduction in recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41−1.01, p = 0.056) and 41% reduction in death (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34−1.02, p = 0.059), but with marginal statistical significance. In subgroup analysis, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), negative pelvic lymph node, and tumor size < 4 cm showed improved survival from conization. Conization before radical hysterectomy may be associated with improved survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. This information could serve as a basis for a more tailored patient selection for MIS for cervical cancer.