[Oncologic outcomes of early stage cervical cancer performed operation by different laparoscopic surgical procedures: analysis of clinical data from mutiple centers]

Objective: To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of different laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Methods: From January 2011 to December 2014, the laparoscopic operation cases of cervical cancer at stage Ⅰb1, Ⅰb2, Ⅱa1 and Ⅱa2, including the histologic subtypes of squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma, were collected in five clinical centers. The data were divided into two groups according to the surgical procedures, that is, modified laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy (mLVRH) and total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH). The overall survival rate (OS), disease-free survival rate (DFS) at 5 years were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Results: There were 674 cases in total, including 377 cases of mLVRH, 297 cases of TLRH. (1) The OS at 5 years: the mLVRH was 96.1% and the TLRH was 92.0%, and the mLVRH was higher than that of TLRH （P=0.010）. Stratify analysis， including stage of disease （Ⅰb1 and Ⅱa1）， histologic subtypes （squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma）， lymph node metastasis， revealed that, ① Stage of disease: in stage Ⅰb1, the OS at five years of mLVRH was higher than that in TLRH group （98.6% vs 93.6%, P=0.012）. In stage Ⅱa1, there was significant difference between the two groups, the OS at five years of mLVRH and TLRH were 93.6% and 77.6% （P=0.007）. ② Histologic subtypes: for the OS at five years of squamous-cell carcinoma, mLVRH and TLRH were 96.1% and 92.3%, and there was significant difference （P=0.046）； for adenocarcinoma, the OS at five years were 91.0% and 88.6%， and there was no difference between two groups （P=0.230）. ③ Lymph node metastasis： the mLVRH and TLRH with lymph node metastasis, the OS at five years were 98.6% and 96.4%; the mLVRH and TLRH without lymph node metastasis, the OS at five years were 89.3% and 80.8%. There were no significant differences between the two groups,respectively (P=0.156， P=0.093）. (2) The DFS at 5 years: there was no significant difference between mLVRH and TLRH (94.1% vs 90.9%, P=0.220). Stratify analysis for stage of disease, the mLVRH group was higher than that in the TLRH group in stage Ⅰb1 (97.0% vs 92.8%, P=0.039). However, for stage Ⅱa1, there was no significant difference between mLVRH and TLRH group （88.2% vs 75.8%, P=0.074）. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study indicated that different laparoscopy surgical procedures had diverse oncologic outcomes. The OS at 5 years of the mLVRH is superior to the TLRH. The DFS at 5 years in Ⅰb1 stage, the mLVRH is higher than the TLRH. Therefore, the modified laparoscopy is still an alternative surgery for early cervical cancer patients when following the principle of no-tumor-exposure.