Simple Hysterectomy for Patients with Stage IA2 Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Efficacy and safety analysis of non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer (IA2 ~ IB1): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Radical hysterectomy has long been considered as the standard surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (IA2 to IB1 stages), according to the 2009 International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology. This study aims to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of non-radical surgery as an alternative treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

A systematic search of online databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify relevant literature on surgical treatment options for early-stage cervical cancer. Keywords such as "cervical cancer," "conservative surgery," "early-stage," "less radical surgery," and "simple hysterectomy" were used. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 software, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies.

Results

This meta-analysis included 8 eligible articles covering 9 studies, with 3,950 patients in the simple hysterectomy (SH) surgery group and 6,271 patients in the radical hysterectomy (RH) surgery group. The results indicate that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the Overall Survival (OS) (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.86-1.27, p = 0.671; Heterogeneity: I2 = 33.8%, p = 0.170), Disease Free Survival (DFS) (HR = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.59-3.29, p = 0.456; Heterogeneity: I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.374), Cervical Cancer Specific Survival (CCSS) (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.80-1.54, p = 0.519; Heterogeneity: I2 = 11.9%, p = 0.287) and recurrence rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.69-1.97, p = 0.583; Heterogeneity: I = 0.0%, p = 0.488). However, the mortality rate (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.10-1.67, p = 0.006; Heterogeneity: I2 = 35.4%, p = 0.158) and the rate of postoperative adjuvant therapy (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.16-2.19, p = 0.004; Heterogeneity: I2 = 92.7%, p < 0.10) were higher in the SH group compared to those in the RH group. On the other hand, the incidence of surgical complications was lower in the SH group (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.21-0.59, p = 0.004; Heterogeneity: I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.857) than that in the RH group. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients in the IB1 stage SH group had a significantly higher mortality rate compared to those in the RH group (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.23-2.07, p < 0.001; Heterogeneity: I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.332). However, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the two groups for patients at stage IA2 (RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54-1.30, p = 0.428; Heterogeneity: I2 = 26.8%, p = 0.243). In the subgroups positive for Lymphovascular Space Invasion (LVSI), patients in the SH group had a significantly higher mortality rate than those in the RH group (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.09-1.65, p = 0.005; Heterogeneity: I2 = 41.6%, p = 0.128). However, in the LVSI-negative subgroups, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the two groups (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.01-8.04, p = 0.499).

Conclusion

For patients with early-stage cervical cancer patients at IA2 without LVSI involvement, comparisons between the two groups in terms of OS, DFS, CCSS, recurrence rate, and mortality rates revealed no statistically significant differences, indicating that the choice of surgical approach does not affect long-term survival outcomes for this specific patient group. For patients at IB1 and IA2 stages with LVSI involvement, while there were no significant differences between the two groups in OS, DFS, CSS, and recurrence rate, a significant increase in mortality rates was observed in the SH group. This indicates a potential elevated risk of mortality associated with SH in this subset of patients. Notably, the incidence of surgical complications was significantly lower in the SH group compared to the RH group, highlighting the safety profile of SH in this context. Significantly, among patients in the SH group, an increase in the rate of postoperative adjuvant treatment is associated with a higher occurrence of treatment-related complications. To facilitate more precise patient selection for conservative surgical management, future prospective studies of superior quality are imperative to gain deeper insights into this matter.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023451609: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023451609).

Simple hysterectomy versus radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis aims to compare the surgery-related results and oncological outcomes between SH and RH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHOD

We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane to collect studies that compared oncological and surgery-related outcomes between SH and RH groups in patients with stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4.

RESULT

Seven studies comprising 6977 patients were included into our study. For oncological outcomes, we found no statistical difference in recurrence rate [OR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.50, 1.57); P = 0.68] and Overall Survival (OS) [OR = 1.23; 95% CI (0.69, 2.19), P = 0.48]. No difference was detected in the prevalence of positive LVSI and lymph nodes metastasis between the two groups. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the bladder injury [OR = 0.28; 95% CI (0.08, 0.94), P = 0.04] and bladder disfunction [OR = 0.10; 95% CI (0.02, 0.53), P = 0.007] of the RH group were higher compared to the SH group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested there are no significant differences in terms of both recurrence rate and overall survival among patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer undergoing SH or RH, while the SH group has better surgery-related outcomes. These data confirm the need to narrow the indication for RH in early-stage cervical cancer.

Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer

BACKGROUND

Retrospective data suggest that the incidence of parametrial infiltration is low in patients with early-stage low-risk cervical cancer, which raises questions regarding the need for radical hysterectomy in these patients. However, data from large, randomized trials comparing outcomes of radical and simple hysterectomy are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing radical hysterectomy with simple hysterectomy including lymph-node assessment in patients with low-risk cervical cancer (lesions of ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion). The primary outcome was cancer recurrence in the pelvic area (pelvic recurrence) at 3 years. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 4 percentage points.

RESULTS

Among 700 patients who underwent randomization (350 in each group), the majority had tumors that were stage IB1 according to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) criteria (91.7%), that had squamous-cell histologic features (61.7%), and that were grade 1 or 2 (59.3%). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the incidence of pelvic recurrence at 3 years was 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group and 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group (an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, -1.62 to 2.32). Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis. The incidence of urinary incontinence was lower in the simple hysterectomy group than in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (2.4% vs. 5.5%; P = 0.048) and beyond 4 weeks (4.7% vs. 11.0%; P = 0.003). The incidence of urinary retention in the simple hysterectomy group was also lower than that in the radical hysterectomy group within 4 weeks after surgery (0.6% vs. 11.0%; P<0.001) and beyond 4 weeks (0.6% vs. 9.9%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the 3-year incidence of pelvic recurrence and was associated with a lower risk of urinary incontinence or retention. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01658930.).

A Case for the Conservative Management of Stage IA Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer remains a significant public health concern within the United States and across the world. Cervical cancer is most frequently diagnosed in women between the ages of 35 and 44 and therefore affects a younger patient population than many other cancers. The management of early-stage disease has frequently utilized radical hysterectomy with the associated increased surgical morbidity, without clear evidence of any benefits. In stage IA disease, there are retrospective pathologic data supporting the safety of conservative surgery and lymphadenectomy over radical hysterectomy. There are also emerging prospective studies supporting conservative management. This editorial presents the evidence for conservative management of stage IA cervical cancer by reviewing the existing retrospective studies as well as the ongoing prospective studies.