Dataset Information

Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the perioperative morbidity and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS:A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2016 was identified. Patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer were included and were grouped by ARH vs. RRH. Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups. RESULTS:105 patients were identified; 56 underwent ARH and 49 underwent RRH. Those who had ARH were more likely to have lesions that were ?2?cm (62% vs. 39%, p?=?0.02) and that were higher grade (p?=?0.048). Other tumor characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates between groups. Additionally, there were no differences in recurrence risk (RR) (14% vs. 24%, p?=?0.22), progression-free survival (PFS) (p?=?0.28), or overall survival (OS) (p?=?0.16). However, in those with tumors ?2?cm there was a higher risk of recurrence in the overall cohort (30% vs. 8%, p?=?0.006), and a shorter PFS in the RRH group (HR 0.31, p?=?0.04). On multivariate analysis patients that underwent ARH or had tumors?

SUBMITTER: Doo DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6818647 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.

Doo David W DW Kirkland C Tyler CT Griswold Lauren H LH McGwin Gerald G Huh Warner K WK Leath Charles A CA Kim Kenneth H KH

Gynecologic oncology 20190306 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the perioperative morbidity and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH).<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2016 was identified. Patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer were included and were grouped by ARH vs. RRH. Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival ...[more]

PMID: 30850169

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:This study is to compare the survival outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2 to IIB LACC who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2001 and 2015 were identified. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared according to the surgical approach and were adjusted based on clinicopathologic characteristics. A total of 396 patients were included in the study, with 179 (45.2%) and 217 (54.8%) patients in the ARH and LRH groups, respectively. The LRH group showed a significantly lower amount of estimated blood loss, lower blood transfusion rate and shorter length of hospital stay. Overall, there were no significant differences in the 5-year DFS and 5-year OS between the LRH and ARH groups with the Kaplan-Meier method. However, multivariate analyses identified LRH as an independent prognostic factor for a poor DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The analysis of stage IB2 disease and the squamous subtype (61.9% and 87.9% of all participants, respectively) reached the same conclusion. When stratifying by FIGO stage, the patients with IB2 (n = 348) in the ARH group had a significantly better DFS (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.42, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.67, p = 0.11) than those in the LRH group in the Cox regression model. However, no differences were found in patient with stage IIA1, IIA2, or IIB in Cox regression model. When stratifying by histological types, for the patients with squamous carcinomas (n = 375), in Cox model, ARH had a significantly superior DFS compared with those who underwent LRH (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.82, p = 0.01), but the OS was not statistically significant (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27-1.20, p = 0.14). However, no differences were found in patient with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas in the Cox model. Therefore, ARH was associated with a higher DFS than LRH in patients with LACC, especially in patients with stage IB2 disease or the squamous subtype.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer lesion less than 2 cm.MethodsPatients diagnosed FIGO (2009) stage IB1 (tumor diameter <2 cm) and underwent radical hysterectomy in our hospital between March 2008 and November 2018 were studied. A propensity-matched comparison (1:2) was conducted to minimize selection biases. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier model, along with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 261 patients were enrolled in this study after propensity-matching, with 174 in the open group and 87 in the laparoscopic group. Disease relapsed in seven patients in laparoscopy group, and the recurrence rate was 8.0% (7/87). There were eight patients underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy experienced recurrence, and the recurrence rate was 4.6% (8/174). The multivariate analysis model revealed that laparoscopic operation was associated with higher risk of recurrence than abdominal radical hysterectomy (HR, 3.789; 95% CI, 1.143-12.559; p = 0.029). There were five patients or 2.9% (5/174) died in open surgery group and the corresponding percentage in laparoscopy group was 2.3% (2/87). No difference was found in OS between the two groups (HR, 1.823; 95% CI, 0.2673-12.44; log-rank p = 0.5398). All the recurrence occurred within two years after operation in the laparoscopy group, among which pelvic recurrence (85.7%) was dominant.ConclusionTraditional laparotomy radical hysterectomy has a lower recurrence rate when compared with laparoscopic operation in those cervical cancer patients with a foci diameter less than 2 cm. However, no detrimental effect on survival was found in minimal invasive operation group. Further multi-center prospective trials are needed to confirm our results on a large scale.

Dataset Information

Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.

Publications

Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets