Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

CNKSR2 expression is correlated with immune infiltrates in Cervical Cancer as a favorable prognostic factor

Connector enhancer of kinase suppressor of Ras 2 (CNKSR2) is a scaffold protein that mediates mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. However, the molecular function of CNKSR2 in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CESC) remains unknown. This study aimed to characterize the role of CNKSR2 in patients with CESC. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the expression of CNKSR2 in CESCs is relatively low compared with that in normal cells. We also explored the gene expression profile of high- and low-CNKSR2 expression in patients with cervical cancer. Furthermore, Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis showed that the expression of CNKSR2 was upregulated in synapse assembly, which was coordinately regulated using the cAMP signaling pathway and calcium signaling pathway. The correlation between CNKSR2 and cancer immune cell infiltration was investigated via single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA). High CNKSR2 expression was associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Interestingly, high CNKSR2 expression was a good predictor of the survival outcome in cervical cancer patients. Additionally, CNKSR2 expression was strongly correlated with diverse immune cells in CESCs, including NK cells and T cells. These findings suggest that CNKSR2 is correlated with prognosis and immune infiltration, laying the foundation for future studies on the functional role of CNKSR2 in CESC.

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.

Is less more in the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses recent developments towards less radical surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgery is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. In the last decades, new treatment strategies have been developed aiming to reduce morbidity, without hampering oncological safety. We provide an update of the latest knowledge on safety and morbidity following less radical surgical procedures in early-stage cervical cancer. In cervical cancer with a tumour size of 2 cm or less, radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-sparing conisation) may be a well tolerated option. For patients with larger lesions (>2 cm) and wishing to preserve fertility, administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by less extensive surgery appears to be a feasible and well tolerated alternative to abdominal trachelectomy. With regard to lymph node assessment, increasing evidence shows the feasibility of the sentinel lymph node procedure instead of full pelvic lymphadenectomy. Prospective trials reporting on oncological safety are awaited.It is important to exercise caution when new surgical strategies are introduced. Despite promising retrospective data, prospective randomized studies may present unexpected results, for instance, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy showed inferior results compared to laparotomy.

SUMMARY

There is a shift towards less radical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. This review explores whether and when less is really more.

Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is performed to treat cervical cancer patients; however, a recent study showed that MIS was associated with higher recurrence and death rate compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). In the current study, the prognosis of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent MIS with vaginal closure or ARH was evaluated. One hundred and eighty-two patients underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with stage of IA2, IB1, and IIA1. MIS was performed by laparoscopy or a robot using the vaginal closure method. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the groups. Among the patients, 67 underwent MIS and 115 underwent ARH. The recurrence rate was 4.5% in MIS patients and 3.5% in ARH patients with a median follow-up (interquartile range) of 36 (18–60) and 78 (48–102) months, respectively. DFS and OS were not different between the groups (3y-DFS, 95.3% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.6; 3y-OS, 100% vs. 100%, p = 0.06). In early-stage cervical cancer patients, MIS with vaginal closure did not increase the risk for recurrence or death. Surgical techniques and procedures to avoid spillage of tumor cells could be important for a better prognosis.

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.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was commonly used to treat patients with early-stage cervical cancer, its efficacy remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until March 2021 to compare the prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy) or ARH. The primary outcomes included rates of 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Results

This meta-analysis included 48 studies involving 23346 patients (11220, MIS group; 12126, ARH group). The MIS group had a poorer medium-term (3-year) DFS (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16, p=0.031) than the ARH group, without significant difference in medium-term OS as well as long-term (5-year) DFS and OS. Subgroup analysis of 3-year prognosis revealed that although patients in Western countries who underwent MIS had shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.10, p=0.024), no difference was observed in DFS among those in Asian countries. Moreover, MIS was linked to poorer 3-year DFS in patients with stage I cervical cancer (HR=1.07, p=0.020). Notably, subgroup analysis of 5-year prognosis revealed that patients with tumor size ≥2 cm undergoing MIS exhibited a shorter DFS than those who underwent ARH (HR=1.65, p=0.041).

Conclusion

Patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing MIS may have a poorer prognosis than those undergoing ARH. Therefore, applying MIS in early-stage cervical cancer patients should be conducted with caution.

Systematic Review Registration

The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021258116.

Vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: a retrospective pilot study

Background

Minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer is debated. We developed this new vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer, and we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this surgical procedure and observe the early oncologic outcomes.

Methods

From January 2019 to August 2020, patients with early cervical cancer who underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were studied retrospectively. The clinical characteristics, pathologic outcomes, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up details of the patients were recorded.

Results

Forty-eight patients underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were included, 14 (29.2%) with stage IB1, 13 (27.1%) with stage IB2, 7 (14.6%) with stage IB3, 10 (20.8%) with stage IIA1, and 4 (8.3%) stage with IA2. The mean age at diagnosis was 50.4 (range 28–72) years old. The mean operative time was 237.3 min (range 162–393), and the mean estimated blood loss was 246.5 ml (range 80–800). No intraoperative complications occurred, and there were no patients who were readmitted. Histological types were distributed as follows: squamous cell carcinoma 72.9%, adenocarcinoma 10.4%, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma 16.7%. There were 2 patients (4.2%) with positive nodes, 20 patients (41.7%) with positive lymphovascular space invasion, and 2 patients (4.2%) with positive parametria. Twenty-eight patients (58.3%) received adjuvant therapy after the operation. With a mean follow-up of 17.7 months (range 6–26), there were no recurrent cases, and 11 patients (22.9%) suffered lower limb lymphoedema.

Conclusions

The vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy might be a feasible technique for early cervical cancer, with promising short-term oncological outcomes and safety. A prospective study with more patients and longer follow-up periods should be performed to further evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive surgery and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare risk of recurrence and death related to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients.

METHODS

All relevant literatures in databases were retrieved from the built time of databases to October 2020. Observational studies comparing MIS and ARH in early-stage CC patients were involved. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, including studies with a score of at least 6. Main outcomes involved overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were involved, including 14 894 patients, among which 7213 (48.6%) underwent MIS. The OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.43) and DFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07-1.42) of patients undergoing MIS was obviously shortened compared with those of patients undergoing ARH. Subgroup analysis revealed that OS (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.74) and DFS (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.74) of patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter were significantly reduced by MIS.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and DFS after MIS for early-stage CC treatment were worse than those after ARH, especially for patients with a tumor ≥2 cm in diameter.

Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis

Objective

To compare the survival and recurrence outcomes between open and laparoscopic radically hysterectomy (RH) for stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer based on Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018.

Methods

Data of 1,373 early cervical cancer patients undergoing open or laparoscopic radically hysterectomy at ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW) was used to balance the covariates between the two groups.

Results

A total of 705 cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2009 stage IA2-IIA2 were finally enrolled in this study. After IPTW adjustment, the OS (HR = 2.095, 95% CI: 1.233-3.562, P = 0.006) and PFS (HR = 1.950, 95%CI: 1.194-3.184, P = 0.008) rates were significantly higher in the open RH (ORH) group compared with the laparoscopic RH (LRH) group. Then after re-staging according to the FIGO 2018 staging system, 561 patients still belonged to stage IA2-IIA2, 144 patients were upgraded to stage IIIC1p-IIIC2p. The ORH group had a significantly superior OS (HR = 1.977, 95%CI: 1.077-3.626, P = 0.028) and PFS (HR = 1.811, 95%CI: 1.046-3.134, P = 0.034) compared with the LRH group after PS-IPTW analysis. Furthermore, in patients with no high and intermediate risks, difference of the OS (HR = 1.386, 95%CI: 0.287-6.69, P = 0.684) and PFS (HR = 1.524, 95%CI: 0.363-6.396, P = 0.565) rates between the two groups were with no statistical meaning.

Conclusions

Outcomes of this retrospective cohort study were in compliance with indications for ORH recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines Version 1, 2021. However, LRH showed non-inferiority for patients with no prognostic risk factors compared with ORH.