Impact of surgeon learning curve in minimally invasive radical hysterectomy on early stage cervical cancer patient survival

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.

Learning Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: Are We Facing an Emerging Situation?

Despite wide screening campaigns and early detection, cervical cancer remains the fourth most common cancer among women. Radical hysterectomy, whether by open, laparoscopic or by robotic-assisted techniques, is the mainstay treatment. However, for adequate surgical results and good oncological prognosis, a gynecological surgeon should be trained to perform those procedures. The learning curve of radical hysterectomy, especially by laparoscopy, is influenced by several factors. The LACC trial, the decrease in cervical cancer incidence and radical hysterectomy procedures have widely reduced the learning curve for surgeons. This article mainly discusses the learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancers, and how several factors are influencing it negatively, with the need to have medical authorities reset specific surgical training programs and allocate them to special oncological centers.

Association of Hospital Surgical Volume With Survival in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Treated With Radical Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of number of radical hysterectomies performed per year in each center with disease-free survival and overall survival.

METHODS

We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients previously included in the Surveillance in Cervical Cancer collaborative studies. Individuals with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB1-IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and had negative lymph nodes at final histology were included. Patients were treated at referral centers for gynecologic oncology according to updated national and international guidelines. Optimal cutoffs for surgical volume were identified using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model, with disease-free survival as the outcome and defined as the value that minimizes the P-value of the split in groups in terms of disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was used to create statistically similar cohorts at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 2,157 patients were initially included. The two most significant cutoffs for surgical volume were identified at seven and 17 surgical procedures, dividing the entire cohort into low-volume, middle-volume, and high-volume centers. After propensity score matching, 1,238 patients were analyzed-619 (50.0%) in the high-volume group, 523 (42.2%) in the middle-volume group, and 96 (7.8%) in the low-volume group. Patients who underwent surgery in higher-volume institutions had progressively better 5-year disease-free survival than those who underwent surgery in lower-volume centers (92.3% vs 88.9% vs 83.8%, P=.029). No difference was noted in 5-year overall survival (95.9% vs 97.2% vs 95.2%, P=.70). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that FIGO stage greater than IB1, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, grade greater than 1, tumor diameter greater than 20 mm, minimally invasive surgical approach, nonsquamous cell carcinoma histology, and lower-volume centers represented independent risk factors for recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Surgical volume of centers represented an independent prognostic factor affecting disease-free survival. Increasing number of radical hysterectomies performed in each center every year was associated with improved disease-free survival.

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.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) emerged as the mainstay in the surgical management of cervical cancer, bringing advantages such as lower operative morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes in numerous retrospective studies. However, in 2018, a prospective phase III randomized controlled trial, “Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix (LACC)”, unexpectedly reported that MIS was associated with a statistically significant poorer overall survival and disease-free survival compared to open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Various hypotheses have been raised by the authors to try to explain these results, but the LACC trial was not powered to answer those questions. In this study, through an exhaustive literature review, we wish to explore some of the potential causes that may explain the poorer oncologic outcomes associated with MIS, including the type of MIS surgery, the size of the lesion, the impact of CO2 pneumoperitoneum, prior conization, the use of uterine manipulator, the use of protective measures, and the effect of surgical expertise/learning curve.

Assessment of ESGO Quality Indicators in Cervical Cancer Surgery: A Real-World Study in a High-Volume Chinese Hospital

The ESGO developed a list of fifteen quality indicators for cervical cancer surgery in order to audit and improve clinical practice in 2020. However, data from the developing countries with high incidence rates of cervical cancer is still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study of 7081 cases diagnosed as cervical cancer between 2014 and 2019 in a Chinese single center according to the quality indicators proposed by ESGO. A total of 5952 patients underwent radical procedures, with an average of 992.0 per year. All surgeries were performed or supervised by a certified gynecologic oncologist as surgical qualification grading system has been established. Compared with the low-volume group, patients in the high-volume group (≥15 cases/year) had a shorter hospital stay (P<0.001), more free surgical margins (P=0.031), and less complications (P<0.001), but the 5-year recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates were similar (P>0.05). Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting but with the consultation system. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 19.7% of patients with pelvic MRI and 45.7% of patients with PET-CT. A total of 1459 (20.6%) patients experienced at least one complication after surgery. The CDC grade IIIb or higher complications occurred in 80 patients, accounting for 5.5% complications. The urological fistula rate within 30 postoperative days were 0.3%. After primary surgical treatment, 97.4% patients had clear vaginal and parametrial margins. After restaging FIGO 2009 to FIGO 2018 system, 14.7% patients with a stage T1b disease were T-upstaged. After a median follow-up of 42 months, recurrence occurred in 448 patients, and 82.1% patients recurred within 2 years. The 2-year RFS rate of patients with pT1b1N0 was 97.3% in 2009 FIGO staging system. Lymph node staging was performed in 99.0% patients with a stage T1 disease. After a primary surgical treatment for a stage pT1b1N0 disease, 28.3% patients received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Above all, most of quality indicators reached the targets, except four quality indicators. The quality indicators of ESGO should be popularized and applied in China to guarantee quality of surgery.

The Surgeon's Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by surgeons in different phases and evaluate whether the proficiency of surgeons affects the survival outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A total of 851 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2008 and June 2018 (every year from January to June) at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into four phases according to their sequence (phase one, 1-10 cases; phase two: 11-20 cases; phase three: 21-30 cases; phase four: > 30 cases). Demographics and clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed.

Results

There were no statistical differences between the open surgery and MIS groups regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The OS and DFS of patients in the MIS group in phase one were significantly lower than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group after adjustment (OS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.896; 95%CI, 1.303-6.435; DFS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.712; 95%CI, 1.289-5.706). Survival outcomes were not statistically significant when comparing different surgeons.

Conclusion

The phase one cases of MIS had lower OS and DFS than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group. Thus, we suggest that the proficiency of surgeons is associated with survival outcomes of MIS. Favorable outcomes can be obtained after a certain number of MIS cases.