Dataset Information

Risk Factors for Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

ABSTRACT: This retrospective analysis aimed to assess the risk factors for recurrence in patients diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (?IB1 or IIA1, FIGO 2009) undergoing robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in Spain and Portugal between 2009 and 2018. A second primary objective was to audit the oncological outcomes according to quality indicators (QI) proposed by the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO). The study population included 239 women. After a median follow-up of 51 months, recurrence occurred in 26 patients (10.9%). Independent factors for recurrence were clinical tumor size > 20 mm (hazard ratio (HR) 2.37), adenocarcinoma as histological type (HR 2.51), positive pelvic lymph nodes (HR 4.83), tumor grade 2 (HR 4.99), tumor grade 3 (HR 8.06), and having not performed sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) (HR 4.08). All 5 QI selected were surpassed by our results. In patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, clinicians should be aware that tumor grade 2 and 3, tumor size > 20 mm, adenocarcinoma, positive pelvic nodes, and lack of performance of SLNB are risk factors for recurrence. Fulfillment of QI targets of the ESGO might be considered as an objective oncological outcome indicator supporting the minimally invasive approach for early-stage cervical cancer treatment.

SUBMITTER: Ponce J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7696424 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk Factors for Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Ponce Jordi J Fernandez-Gonzalez Sergi S Gil-Moreno Antonio A Coronado Pluvio J PJ De la Rosa Jesús J Nabais Henrique H Hernández Ginés G Taltavull Anna A Gilabert-Estelles Juan J Martínez-Román Sergio S Barahona Manel M Barahona Marc M Martínez-Maestre María Ángeles MÁ

Cancers 20201116 11

This retrospective analysis aimed to assess the risk factors for recurrence in patients diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (≤IB1 or IIA1, FIGO 2009) undergoing robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in Spain and Portugal between 2009 and 2018. A second primary objective was to audit the oncological outcomes according to quality indicators (QI) proposed by the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO). The study population included 239 women. After a median follow-up of 51 months, recur ...[more]

PMID: 33207627

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: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:BackgroundSince the release of the LACC trial results in 2018, the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has received huge attention and heated discussion. We developed modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) incorporating a series of measures to prevent tumor spillage, which has been performed in our center since 2015.ObjectivePresent study retrospectively analyzed relevant indicators of MLRH and evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) primarily in the treatment of early cervical cancer compared with open surgery.MethodsPatients with 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical stages 1B1 and 2A1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in the gynecological department of our hospital from October 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled retrospectively in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group (n = 336) and MLRH group (n = 302). Clinical characteristics, surgical indices, and survival prognosis were analyzed, including 2.5-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2.5-year DFS rate, recurrence rate, and recurrence pattern.ResultsCompared to the ORH group, the MLRH group exhibited a longer operative time, longer normal bladder function recovery time, less intraoperative blood loss volume, and more harvested pelvic lymph nodes (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, the 2.5-year OS, 2.5-year DFS, and recurrence rate between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, the recurrence pattern was significantly different (P < 0.05). The MLRH group mainly exhibited local single metastasis (7/11), whereas the ORH group mainly exhibited distant multiple metastases (14/16). Stratified analysis revealed that overall survival rate was higher in the MLRH group than in the ORH group in patients with stage 1B1 and middle invasion (P < 0.05).ConclusionMLRH does not show a survival disadvantage in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer when compared with open surgery. In addition, MLRH shows a survival advantage in patients with stage 1B1 and middle 1/3 invasion. Considering this is a retrospective study, further prospective study is necessary for more sufficient data support.Trial registrationPresent research is a retrospective study. The study had retrospectively registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), and the registered number is ChiCTR1900026306.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) in the treatment of cervical cancer patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. We collected the clinical data of 654 patients with cervical cancer (406 ARH, 172 LRH, and 76 VALRH), then compared the effects of different surgical methods on recurrence and survival.ResultsTotal overall survival (OS) were no significant differences in three groups (P>0.05). Total disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly higher in ARH group than in LRH group [hazard ratio (HR) =2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.199-3.607, P=0.004]; however, there were no significant differences between the VALRH (94.7%) and ARH (93.3%) groups. Subgroup stratification analysis showed that the overall recurrence rate in LRH group was significantly higher than that of the ARH groups for patients with a tumor size from ≥2 to <4 cm, negative postoperative lymph nodes, and no postoperative adjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). However, in the subgroup with tumor sizes of ≥2, <4, and ≥4 cm, no matter whether the lymph nodes were positive or not, and those with no postoperative supplementary adjuvant therapy, LRH was associated with a significantly higher local pelvic recurrence rate than ARH (all P<0.05). No significant differences between VALRH and ARH in any of the subgroup analyses (all P>0.05). A Cox analysis indicated that LRH increased the risk of overall and local pelvic recurrence after surgery compared with ARH (HR =2.338, 95% CI: 1.186-4.661, P=0.014; HR =10.313, 95% CI: 2.839-37.460, P<0.001); however, no significant difference between VALRH and ARH (all P>0.05). Sensitivity analysis of surgeons did not change the conclusions.ConclusionsOur analyses showed that the local pelvic recurrence rates and overall recurrence rates of LRH were significantly higher than ARH. VALRH could avoid tumor intraperitoneal exposure and achieve the same tumor prognosis as open surgery. By improving the standardization of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer and paying close attention to the tumor-free concept, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may achieve the same tumor outcome as 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.

Dataset Information

Risk Factors for Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Publications

Risk Factors for Recurrence after Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets