Dataset Information

Wait-time for hysterectomy and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer: A clinical implication during the coronavirus pandemic.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:A global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus (Covid-19) has created unique challenges to providing timely care for cancer patients. In early-stage cervical cancer, postponing hysterectomy for 6-8 weeks is suggested as a possible option in the Covid-19 burdened hospitals. Yet, literature examining the impact of surgery wait-time on survival in early-stage cervical cancer remains scarce. This study examined the association between surgery wait-time of 8 weeks and oncologic outcome in women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS:This is a single institution retrospective observational study at a tertiary referral medical center examining women who underwent primary hysterectomy or trachelectomy for clinical stage IA-IIA invasive cervical cancer between 2000 and 2017 (N = 217). Wait-time from the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer via biopsy to definitive surgery was categorized as: short wait-time (<8 weeks; n = 110) versus long wait-time (?8 weeks; n = 107). Propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the measured demographics between the two groups, and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. A systematic literature review with meta-analysis was additionally performed. RESULTS:In a weighted model (median follow-up, 4.6 years), women in the long wait-time group had DFS (4.5-year rates, 91.2% versus 90.7%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-2.59, P = 0.818) and OS (95.0% versus 97.4%, HR 1.47, 95%CI 0.50-4.31, P = 0.487) similar to those in the short wait-time group. Three studies were examined for meta-analysis, and a pooled HR for surgery wait-time of ?8 weeks on DFS was 0.96 (95%CI 0.59-1.55). CONCLUSION:Our study suggests that wait-time of 8 weeks for hysterectomy may not be associated with short-term disease recurrence in women with early-stage cervical cancer.

SUBMITTER: Matsuo K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7231758 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Wait-time for hysterectomy and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer: A clinical implication during the coronavirus pandemic.

Matsuo Koji K Novatt Hilary H Matsuzaki Shinya S Hom Marianne S MS Castaneda Antonio V AV Licon Ernesto E Nusbaum David J DJ Roman Lynda D LD

Gynecologic oncology 20200518 1

<h4>Objective</h4>A global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus (Covid-19) has created unique challenges to providing timely care for cancer patients. In early-stage cervical cancer, postponing hysterectomy for 6-8 weeks is suggested as a possible option in the Covid-19 burdened hospitals. Yet, literature examining the impact of surgery wait-time on survival in early-stage cervical cancer remains scarce. This study examined the association between surgery wait-time of 8 weeks and oncologic out ...[more]

PMID: 32425268

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS:We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010-2013 period at Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000-2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. RESULTS:In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Women treated with minimally invasive surgery were more often white, privately insured, and from ZIP Codes with higher socioeconomic status, had smaller, lower-grade tumors, and were more likely to have received a diagnosis later in the study period than women who underwent open surgery. Over a median follow-up of 45 months, the 4-year mortality was 9.1% among women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and 5.3% among those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.22; P=0.002 by the log-rank test). Before the adoption of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (i.e., in the 2000-2006 period), the 4-year relative survival rate among women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer remained stable (annual percentage change, 0.3%; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.6). The adoption of minimally invasive surgery coincided with a decline in the 4-year relative survival rate of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4) per year after 2006 (P=0.01 for change of trend). CONCLUSIONS:In an epidemiologic study, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery among women with stage IA2 or IB1 cervical carcinoma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

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:ObjectiveTo examine the association between surgical volume and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy.MethodsThis is a nationwide multicenter retrospective study examining consecutive women with clinical stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy from 2004 to 2008 (N=5,964). The surgical volume per site over the 5-year period was defined as low-volume (fewer than 32 surgeries, 46 [39.7%] institutions, n=649 [10.9%]), mid-volume (32-104 surgeries, 60 [51.7%] institutions, n=3,662 [61.4%]), and high-volume (105 surgeries or more, 10 [8.6%] institutions, n=1,653 [27.7%]). Surgical volume-specific survival was examined with multivariable analysis and propensity score matching.ResultsThe median number of surgeries per site was 44 (interquartile range, 17-65). The 5-year disease-free survival rates among stage IB1-IIB disease were 77.2%, 79.9%, and 84.5% for low-, mid-, and high-volume groups, respectively. On multivariable analysis, women in high-volume centers had a decreased risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82, P<.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.90, P=.003) compared with those in mid-volume centers. Specifically, women in high-volume centers had a decreased risk of local recurrence (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78, P<.001) but not distant recurrence (adjusted HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.06, P=.142) compared with those in mid-volume centers. Among 1,700 women with clinical stage IB1 disease treated with surgery alone, surgery at high-volume centers was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.79, P=.006) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.76, P=.013) compared with surgery at mid-volume centers on multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, surgery at high-volume centers remained an independent prognostic factor for decreased recurrence (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84, P<.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95, P=.016) compared with surgery at mid- and low-volume centers on multivariable analysis.ConclusionHospital volume for radical hysterectomy may be a prognostic factor for early-stage cervical cancer. Surgery at high-volume centers is associated with decreased local recurrence risk and improved survival.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Trachelectomy is the treatment of choice for reproductive-aged women with early-stage cervical cancer who desire future fertility. Comprehensive population-based statistics have been missing to date. OBJECTIVE:We sought to compare characteristics and survival of reproductive-aged women who underwent trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer to those who had hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN:This is a retrospective observational study examining the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program from 1998 through 2014. Women <45 years of age with stage IA and IB1 (tumor size ≤2 cm) cervical cancer who underwent trachelectomy were compared to those who underwent hysterectomy. Multivariable models were used to identify clinicopathological factors associated with trachelectomy. Survival was compared between the 2 groups after propensity score matching. RESULTS:Among 6359 women, 190 (3.0%; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.4) underwent trachelectomy. The median age of the trachelectomy group was 31 years (interquartile range, 28-34). The proportion of women who underwent trachelectomy significantly increased during the study period (1.2% in 1998 through 2002, 3.0% in 2003 through 2008, and 4.5% in 2009 through 2014, P < .001). Younger age, nonblack race, single marital status, eastern registry area, recent disease diagnosis, nonsquamous histology, and higher stage were independent factors associated with trachelectomy use (all, adjusted P < .05). After propensity score matching, 5-year cause-specific survival (96.9% vs 96.6%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-2.30; P = .59) and overall survival (96.1% vs 96.6%; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-2.20; P = .61) were similar between the trachelectomy group and the hysterectomy group. CONCLUSION:Our study found that there was a significant increase in the proportion of reproductive-aged women with stage IA or IB1 (≤2 cm) cervical cancer who underwent trachelectomy in recent years. Survival with trachelectomy was similar to those who had hysterectomy in this population.

Project description:ImportanceMinimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.ObjectiveTo quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.Study selectionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.Data extraction and synthesisThe Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.ResultsForty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

Dataset Information

Wait-time for hysterectomy and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer: A clinical implication during the coronavirus pandemic.

Publications

Wait-time for hysterectomy and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer: A clinical implication during the coronavirus pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets