Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Aim of our study was to evaluate whether the different laparotomic (ARH) or minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches (MIS) in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, present different patterns of recurrence of the disease. The secondary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of the variables most involved with the risk of relapse and therefore lower DFS and OS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study enrolled patients with definitive histological diagnosis of squamous or adenocarcinoma stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive or abdominal radical hysterectomy from 2001 to 2018.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 360 patients and 59 patients (16.4 %) reported a disease relapse. The data showed that ARH group was not associated with different recurrence patterns than MIS group (p = 0.14). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference regarding DFS (p = 0.52) and OS (p = 0.29) between the ARH group and the MIS group.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS, in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, is not associated with different relapse patterns compared to ARH, nor with a higher risk of distance metastasis and finally, without significant difference in term of DFS and OS. More studies are needed to determine the factors that modify the site of relapse.

A multicenter noninferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stage IB3 and IIA2): study protocol of the LAUNCH 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is and will remain to be an important health problem in China, especially with an increasing proportion of younger patients who has more specific needs. In China, surgery to remove tumor burden followed by postoperative treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy based on clinicopathologic factors may be the best choice for stages IB3 and IIA2 patients. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology. The current trial is designed to evaluate whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stages IB3 and IIA2) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent surgical oncologic principles. This paper reports the rationale, design, and implementation of the trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. A total of 1104 patients with stage IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of 3 years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed up for at least 5 years. The primary end point will be 5-year overall survival, and secondary endpoints include 5-year progression-free survival, recurrence, and quality of life measurements.

DISCUSSION

The study results will provide more convincing evidence-based information for stages IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer patients and their gynecologic cancer surgeons in their choice of surgical method.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04939831 , retrospectively registered on 25 June 2021.

A multicenter non-inferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1): study protocol of the LAUNCH 2 trial

Background

A retrospective study and a randomized controlled trial published in late 2018 have shown that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RH) was associated with worse survival than abdominal RH among patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology; therefore, this conclusion is pivotal. The current trial is designed to reconfirm whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent surgical oncologic principles.

Methods/design

This is an investigator-initiated, Prospective, Randomized, Open, Blinded End-point (PROBE)-controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 780 patients with stage IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of 3 years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed up for at least 5 years. The primary endpoint will be 5-year progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, recurrence, and quality of life measurements.

Discussion

The debate on laparoscopic versus abdominal RH is still ongoing, and high-quality evidences are needed to guide clinical practice. The study results will provide more convincing evidence-based information for early-stage cervical cancer patients and their gynecologic cancer surgeons in their choice of surgical method.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04929769. Registered on 18 June 2021

Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), with a focus on recurrence patterns, tumor sizes, and conization.

METHODS

This single-institution, retrospective study consisted of stage IA1-IB1 (FIGO 2009) squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2000 and 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 582 patients included, 353 (60.7%) underwent ARH, and 229 (39.3%) MIRH. The median follow-up was 14.4 years in the ARH group and 6.1 years in the MIRH group (p < 0.0001). Among the 96 stage IA patients, only 3 (3.1%) experienced recurrence. Among stage IB1 patients, the risk of recurrence, after adjusting for standard prognostic variables, was twofold higher in the MIRH group versus the ARH group (HR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.56-4.80), and the relative difference was similar in terms of risk of cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.28-7.20) and overall survival (OS) (HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.21-4.59). In stage IB1 ≤ 2 cm patients without conization MIRH was associated with reduced time to recurrence (TTR) (HR 4.00, 95% CI: 1.67-9.57), CSS (HR 3.71, 95% CI: 1.19-11.58) and OS (HR 3.02, 95% CI: 1.24-7.34). Intraperitoneal combined recurrences accounted for 12 of 30 (40.0%) recurrences in the MIRH group but were not identified after ARH (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH was associated with reduced TTR, CSS and OS versus ARH in stage IB1 CC patients. The risk of peritoneal recurrence was high, even for tumors ≤2 cm without conization.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Comparison of urologic complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy: A nationwide study from the National Health Insurance

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

Using the database of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Health Insurance Review & Assessment (HIRA), we identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2006 and 2018. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were compared between the ARH and LRH groups.

RESULTS

A total of 11,399 patients were identified to ARH and 8435 patients to LRH. Urologic complications occurred in 292 of 19,774 patients (1.48%) who underwent radical hysterectomy. LRH was associated with higher complication rates than ARH, although with a borderline significance (OR: 1.23; 90% CI: 1.02-1.51, p = 0.066). There was no difference in intraoperative urologic complications between the ARH and the LRH groups (OR: 1.1 95% CI: 0.86-1.43, p < 0.435). The incidence of postoperative urologic complications was significantly higher in the LRH group (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.18-3.47, p = 0.009). In terms of postoperative urologic complications, the risk of ureterovaginal fistula was not significant between the two groups (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.54-4.24, p = 0.403), whereas the risk of vesicovaginal fistula was significantly higher in the LRH group (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.09-4.58, p = 0.028). There were no significant differences in the overall and urinary tract-specific complications between ARH and LRH in groups under 40 years of age and during the second half (2013-2018), with 2012 as the boundary.

CONCLUSION

Among specific urologic complications, the incidence of vesicovaginal fistula was significantly higher in the LRH group than in the ARH group.

Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the survival outcomes of stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy in China between 2004 and 2016. A real-world study (RWS) and 1:1 matching was used in the study.

RESULTS

After 1:1 matching, laparoscopic (n = 926) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (n = 926) had similar 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Subsequently, in cervical squamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic and abdominal groups (724 cases, respectively) showed comparable 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Finally, in cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic group (n = 174) had a similar 5-year overall survival rate but a lower disease-free survival rate compared to those of the abdominal group (disease-free survival: 89.9% vs. 98.0%, respectively, P = 0.006; hazard ratio (HR), 5.094; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.400-18.535; P = 0.013; n = 174). The RWS results were similar to the 1:1 matching results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size ≤ 2 cm might be suitable for laparoscopic surgery, while patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm are not candidates for laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Urinary and anal dysfunction after laparoscopic versus laparotomic radical hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare urinary and anal dysfunction after laparoscopic (LRH) and abdominal (ARH) radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for treatment of cervical cancer were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups, according to the surgical approach. Urinary and anal symptoms were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty-four women were considered: 27 LRH and 27 ARH. Urinary incontinence was significantly more frequent both after LRH (37% vs 86.9%, p=0.0004) and after ARH (33.3% vs 100%, p<0.0001); urge incontinence (3.7% vs 29.6%, p=0.02) and increased bladder sensation (0 vs 22.2%, p=0.02) were significantly more common postoperatively in patients undergone ARH. In both groups more patients complain about increase of straining during voiding (LRH: 0 vs 34.7%, p=0.009; ARH: 3.7% vs 29.6% p=0.02) after surgery. Postoperative constipation by obstructed defecation was more frequent after ARH (Wexner score: 0 vs 2, p=0.03) but not after LRH.

CONCLUSION

From our results, laparoscopic approach for radical hysterectomy seems to reduce the postoperative occurrence of urge incontinence, increased bladder sensation and constipation by obstructed defecation, in comparison with abdominal radical surgery.