Dataset Information

Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the survival and recurrence outcomes between open and laparoscopic radically hysterectomy (RH) for stage IA2-IIA2 cervical cancer based on Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018.

Methods

Data of 1,373 early cervical cancer patients undergoing open or laparoscopic radically hysterectomy at ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW) was used to balance the covariates between the two groups.

Results

A total of 705 cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2009 stage IA2-IIA2 were finally enrolled in this study. After IPTW adjustment, the OS (HR = 2.095, 95% CI: 1.233-3.562, P = 0.006) and PFS (HR = 1.950, 95%CI: 1.194-3.184, P = 0.008) rates were significantly higher in the open RH (ORH) group compared with the laparoscopic RH (LRH) group. Then after re-staging according to the FIGO 2018 staging system, 561 patients still belonged to stage IA2-IIA2, 144 patients were upgraded to stage IIIC1p-IIIC2p. The ORH group had a significantly superior OS (HR = 1.977, 95%CI: 1.077-3.626, P = 0.028) and PFS (HR = 1.811, 95%CI: 1.046-3.134, P = 0.034) compared with the LRH group after PS-IPTW analysis. Furthermore, in patients with no high and intermediate risks, difference of the OS (HR = 1.386, 95%CI: 0.287-6.69, P = 0.684) and PFS (HR = 1.524, 95%CI: 0.363-6.396, P = 0.565) rates between the two groups were with no statistical meaning.

Conclusions

Outcomes of this retrospective cohort study were in compliance with indications for ORH recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines Version 1, 2021. However, LRH showed non-inferiority for patients with no prognostic risk factors compared with ORH.

SUBMITTER: Zhao W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247576 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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: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: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.