Dataset Information

Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) was introduced with the aim to reduce pelvic dysfunctions related to conventional radical hysterectomy (RH). Here, we sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of NSRH in a relatively large number of the patients of cervical cancer (CC) patients undergoing either primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery. METHODS:Outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing NSRH and of a historical cohort of patients undergoing conventional RH were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:This study included 325 (49.8%) and 327 (50.2%) undergoing NSRH and RH, respectively. Via a multivariable model, nodal status was the only factor predicting for DFS (hazard ratio [HR]=2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.17-3.73; p=0.01). A trend towards high risk of recurrence was observed for patients affected by locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) undergoing NACT followed by surgery (HR=2.57; 95% CI=0.95-6.96; p=0.06). Type of surgical procedures (NSRH vs. RH) did not influence risk of recurrence (p=0.47). Similarly, we observed that the execution of NSRH rather than RH had not a detrimental effect on OS (HR=1.19; 95% CI=0.16-9.01; p=0.87). Via multivariable model, no factor directly correlated with OS. No difference in early complication rates was observed between the study groups. Conversely, a significant higher number of late complications was reported in RH versus NSRH groups (p=0.02). CONCLUSION:Our data suggested that NSRH upholds effectiveness of conventional RH, without increasing recurrence and complication rates but improving pelvic dysfunction rates.

SUBMITTER: Ditto A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5920225 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.

Ditto Antonino A Bogani Giorgio G Leone Roberti Maggiore Umberto U Martinelli Fabio F Chiappa Valentina V Lopez Carlos C Perotto Stefania S Lorusso Domenica D Raspagliesi Francesco F

Journal of gynecologic oncology 20180228 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) was introduced with the aim to reduce pelvic dysfunctions related to conventional radical hysterectomy (RH). Here, we sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of NSRH in a relatively large number of the patients of cervical cancer (CC) patients undergoing either primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>Outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing NSRH and of a historical cohort of patien ...[more]

PMID: 29533024

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadical hysterectomy is one of the standard treatments for stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer. Bladder dysfunction caused by disruption of the pelvic autonomic nerves is a common complication following standard radical hysterectomy and can affect quality of life significantly. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy is a modified radical hysterectomy, developed to permit resection of oncologically relevant tissues surrounding the cervical lesion, while preserving the pelvic autonomic nerves.ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in women with stage Ia2 to IIa cervical cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to May week 2, 2018), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 21). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, reports of conferences, citation lists of included studies, and key textbooks for potentially relevant studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy compared to standard radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer (stage Ia2 to IIa).Data collection and analysisWe applied standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias of the included studies, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion or consultation with a third review author, and assessed the certainty of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 1332 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 26 studies that potentially met the review criteria, we included four studies involving 205 women; most of the trials had unclear risks of bias. We identified one ongoing trial.The analysis of overall survival was not feasible, as there were no deaths reported among women allocated to standard radical hysterectomy. However, there were two deaths in among women allocated to the nerve-sparing technique. None of the included studies reported rates of intermittent self-catheterisation over one month following surgery. We could not analyse the relative effect of the two surgical techniques on quality of life due to inconsistent data reported. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy reduced postoperative bladder dysfunctions in terms of a shorter time to postvoid residual volume of urine ≤ 50 mL (mean difference (MD) -13.21 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.02 to -2.41; 111 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and lower volume of postvoid residual urine measured one month following operation (MD -9.59 days; 95% CI -16.28 to -2.90; 58 women; 2 study; low-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in terms of perioperative complications (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.26; 180 women; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) and disease-free survival (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.00 to 106.95; 86 women; one study; very low-certainty evidence) between the comparison groups.Authors' conclusionsNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy may lessen the risk of postoperative bladder dysfunction compared to the standard technique, but the certainty of this evidence is low. The very low-certainty evidence for disease-free survival and lack of information for overall survival indicate that the oncological safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for women with early stage cervical cancer remains unclear. Further large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine, if clinically meaningful differences of survival exist between these two surgical treatments.

Project description:Backgroud and objectiveNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) may be associated with lower postoperative morbidity than radical hysterectomy (RH). We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH and RH for treating cervical cancer through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched for all relevant studies. Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques.ResultsA total of 17 clinical trials were identified. Meta-analysis showed that although operating time was significantly longer for abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH than for RH, NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy proved more effective for postoperative recovery of bladder function. NSRH was also associated with lower bladder dysfunction morbidity and fewer postoperative complications. Two abdominal trials and one laparoscopic study further suggested that NSRH was associated with shorter time to recovery of anal/rectal function. In contrast, RH and NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy were similar in terms of extent of resection, recurrence rate, survival rate, blood loss and frequency of intraoperative complications. The meta-analysis showed that abdominal NSRH was not significantly different from RH in length of hospital stay, while one trial suggested that length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic NSRH than after the corresponding RH.ConclusionNSRH may be a reliable technique for treating early cervical cancer. Available evidence suggests that it is better than RH for postoperative recovery of pelvic organ function and postoperative morbidity, while the two techniques involve similar clinical safety and extent of resection. These results should be considered preliminary since they are based on a relatively small number of controlled trials, most of which were non-randomized. The findings should be verified in larger, well-designed studies.

Project description:Cervical cancer (CC) continues to be a global burden for women, with higher incidence and mortality rates reported annually. Many countries have witnessed a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of CC due to widely accessed robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). This network meta-analysis aims to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in way of RRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LTH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the treatment of early-stage CC.A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases was performed from inception to June 2016. Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of above three hysterectomies in the treatment of early-stage CC were included in this study. Direct and indirect evidence were incorporated for calculating values of weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR), and drawing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).Seventeen 17 CCTs were ultimately enrolled in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that patients treated by RRH and LRH had lower estimated blood loss compared to patients treated by ORH (WMD = -399.52, 95% CI = -600.64~-204.78; WMD = -277.86, 95%CI = -430.84 ~ -126.07, respectively). Patients treated by RRH and LRH had less hospital stay (days) than those by ORH (WMD = -3.49, 95% CI = -5.79~-1.24; WMD = -3.26, 95% CI = -5.04~-1.44, respectively). Compared with ORH, patients treated with RRH had lower postoperative complications (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.08~0.65). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of three radical hysterectomies showed that patients receiving RRH illustrated better conditions on intraoperative blood loss, operation time, the number of resected lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, while patients receiving ORH demonstrated relatively poorer conditions.The results of this meta-analysis confirmed that early-stage CC patients treated by RRH were superior to patients treated by LRH and ORH in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative complications, and RRH might be regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic procedure for the management of CC.

Dataset Information

Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.

Publications

Oncologic effectiveness of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets