Dataset Information

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: Volume-outcome relationship in the early experience period.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIS-RH) for early-stage cervical cancer is a relatively new surgical procedure with increased utilization in the mid-/late-2000s. This study examined the association between hospital surgical volume for MIS-RH and perioperative outcomes for early-stage cervical cancer in the period of early adoption.

Methods

This population-based retrospective study queried the National Inpatient Sample from 2007 to 2011. Cervical cancer cases treated with MIS-RH were examined (n = 2202 from 163 hospitals). Annualized hospital surgical volume was defined as the average number of procedures performed per year in which at least one case was performed. Characteristics and outcomes related to MIS-RH use were assessed. The comparator cohort included RH by laparotomy (Open-RH; n = 11,187 from 405 hospitals).

Results

Among MIS-RH-offering centers, 42.3% had average 1 case/year and surgical volume of >4 cases/year represented the top decile. When stratified by MIS-RH types, on average 31.3 centers performed robotic-assisted approach per year versus 11.5 centers for the traditional approach. Small bed capacity centers were most likely to perform robotic-assisted RH (adjusted-odds ratio 4.07, P < 0.001). In the traditional MIS-RH group, higher hospital surgical volume was associated with lower surgical morbidity (P = 0.025) whereas in the robotic-assisted approach higher hospital surgical volume was associated with higher surgical morbidity (P < 0.001). In the Open-RH cohort, higher hospital surgical volume was significantly associated with decreased surgical morbidity and mortality (both, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In the mid-/late-2000s, MIS-RH surgical volume was modest in the United States. Small bed capacity centers adopted robotic-assisted MIS-RH more frequently, and there was a statistically significant association of increased perioperative complications among higher volume centers. In contrast, higher surgical volume was associated with improved perioperative outcomes with the traditional MIS-RH and open-RH approaches.

SUBMITTER: Matsuo K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526860 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

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: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms "minimally invasive surgical procedures" and "Uterine Cervical Neoplasms." Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias. Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21-1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50-3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36-2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65-1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65-2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups. Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.