Discussion on the Treatment Strategy for Stage ⅡA1 Cervical Cancer (FIGO 2018)

Strategies, Challenges, and Prospects of Nanoparticles in Gynecological Malignancies

Gynecologic cancers are a significant health issue for women globally. Early detection and successful treatment of these tumors are crucial for the survival of female patients. Conventional therapies are often ineffective and harsh, particularly in advanced stages, necessitating the exploration of new therapy options. Nanotechnology offers a novel approach to biomedicine. A novel biosensor utilizing bionanotechnology can be employed for early tumor identification and therapy due to the distinctive physical and chemical characteristics of nanoparticles. Nanoparticles have been rapidly applied in the field of gynecologic malignancies, leading to significant advancements in recent years. This study highlights the significance of nanoparticles in treating gynecological cancers. It focuses on using nanoparticles for precise diagnosis and continuous monitoring of the disease, innovative imaging, and analytic methods, as well as multifunctional drug delivery systems and targeted therapies. This review examines several nanocarrier systems, such as dendrimers, liposomes, nanocapsules, and nanomicelles, for gynecological malignancies. The review also examines the enhanced therapeutic potential and targeted delivery of ligand-functionalized nanoformulations for gynecological cancers compared to nonfunctionalized anoformulations. In conclusion, the text also discusses the constraints and future exploration prospects of nanoparticles in chemotherapeutics. Nanotechnology will offer precise methods for diagnosing and treating gynecological cancers.

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.