Dataset Information

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since 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.

Objective

Present 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.

Methods

Patients 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.

Results

Compared 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).

Conclusion

MLRH 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 registration

Present 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.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9743762 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Li Xuqing X Pei Xueting X Li Hongyan H Wang Yan Y Zhou Youwei Y Wei Zhaolian Z Yin Zongzhi Z

World journal of surgical oncology 20221212 1

<h4>Background</h4>Since 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.<h4>Objective</h4>Present study retrospectively analyzed relevant indicators of MLRH and evaluated disease-free survival (DFS) p ...[more]

PMID: 36503552

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Project description:ObjectiveCervical 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsSeventeen 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.ConclusionThe 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: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: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:BackgroundMinimally 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionsIn 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.).

Dataset Information

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Comparative single-center study between modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets