Oncological Results of Laparoscopically Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Should We Really Abandon Minimally Invasive Surgery?

Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Incorporating Modified Tumor-Free Techniques

OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether modifying laparoscopic radical hysterectomy to adopt tumor-free principles can improve oncologic outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of 276 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who were treated between January 2017 and January 2023, including 151 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy that incorporated modified tumor-free techniques (MTF group) and 125 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and unprotected intracorporeal colpotomy (non-MTF group). Oncologic outcomes and perioperative results were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Patients in the MTF group had shorter length of hospital stay than those in the non-MTF group. However, there were no significant differences in operative time, decrease in hemoglobin, or complications. After a median follow-up of 36.0 months (range 15.3-62.0 months) for the MTF group and 66.8 months (range 3.0-82.5 months) for the non-MTF group, recurrence was observed in two (1.3%) and 16 (12.8%) of the patients, respectively. The 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates in the MTF group and non-MTF group were 99.3% and 91.9%, respectively. In the primary analysis limited to 2-year survival, the adjusted multivariate analysis showed that use of modified tumor-free techniques was an independent predictor of longer DFS (hazard ratio 0.10 95% CI, 0.01-0.77, P =.027). After IPTW, patients in the MTF group had a more favorable DFS than those in the non-MTF group (log-rank P =.031).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy that incorporates modified tumor-free techniques is a feasible treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Oncologic outcomes of individuals who underwent this procedure were more favorable than those of conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

Effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol on Postoperative Outcomes of Women Undergoing Abdominal Hysterectomy

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is a standardized, multidisciplinary approach for shorter hospital stay without negatively affecting patient outcomes. The aim of this research was to evaluate the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on postoperative outcomes of women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

Design

A quasi-experimental design was adopted to fulfil the aim of this research.

Setting

The research was conducted at Obstetric and Gynecological Department in Benha University Hospital.

Sample

A purposive sample of 148 women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy divided into two groups.

Data collection

Three tools were used: Tool (I) structured questionnaire sheet. Tool (II) post-operative pain assessment scale (numerical rating scale). Tool (III) post-operative outcomes assessment sheet.

Results

There was a highly statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding all postoperative outcomes (p = .000). The women in the study group experienced less mean score of pain compared to those in control group on both 2nd and 3rd day after surgery. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding postoperative complication and readmission (p = .000).

Conclusion

Women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy who received enhanced recovery after surgery protocol had better postoperative outcomes than women who received routine perioperative care.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for minimal invasive surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I2 = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I2 = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

New Insights on the Minimal-Invasive Therapy of Cervical Cancer

Objective: The ideal management of early-stage cervical cancer has become the subject of a global controversy following the publication of a prospective study in 2018 that reported a worse oncologic outcome when comparing the minimally invasive approach to the laparotomy approach. The discussion involves both prospective and retrospective data and general and theoretical considerations. We wanted to look at the data available today and review the different opinions, offering an impartial assessment of the ongoing controversy. Methods: The available literature was reviewed, focusing on articles arguing for and against minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. We tried to avoid any fundamental bias, as is often evident in the available reviews on the subject. Literature both before and after the 2018 publication was taken into consideration. Results: As is usual in discussions of concepts, the literature that is now available provides arguments for both sides of this challenging issue, depending on one’s standpoint. Science-related writing is not immune to trends. There is a curious shift in opinion seen before and after 2018. One must question whether there was a prejudice in favor of minimally invasive surgery prior to the publication of the NEJM articles and a bias against it afterward. Conclusion: Whether further minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer is invariable is tied to the more pressing question of how this surgery will have to be centralized in the future. Unless these questions are linked, no satisfactory solution can be found.

Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for Minimal Invasive Surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.

METHODS

Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.

RESULTS

19 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 9 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3196 patiets were included for the review. Meta-analysis of 1988 0f them highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.8 [95% CI 0.55-1.16] p = 0.24; I² = 0%; p = 0.98). OS was feasible only for 4 studies (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.23-3.02] p = 0.79; I² = 0 p = 0.44). Sub-analysis for tumor with a maximum diameter greater than 2 cm was performed. Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.

CONCLUSION

LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.

Interventional nuclear medicine's contribution to molecularly targeted precision surgery

The surgical approach to different pathologies, not only oncological, has evolved. As Veronesi's group has coined very graphically, we are moving from "maximum tolerable treatments to minimum effective treatments" and this journey cannot be carried out in any other way than through a multidisciplinary and multimodality approach. Multidisciplinary, because collaboration between surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, nuclear physicians, pathologists, and all those involved in patient follow-up is necessary, and multimodality, because we must move towards precision surgery tailored to each patient in which, on the part of Nuclear Medicine, hybrid imaging (SPECT/CT and PET/CT), bimodal tracers, the use of new allies such as ultrasound or our own adaptation to robotic surgery have a great deal to say. A wide range of possibilities is built on the solid foundation of preoperative scintigraphy, which makes it possible to identify the target tissues and whose knowledge prior to surgery allows the necessary surgical approach to be considered for each patient.