Primary conization overcomes the risk of developing local recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cancers
Background: Recent evidence indicates that some minimally invasive surgery approaches, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy, offer lower survival rates to patients with early-stage cervical cancer than open radical hysterectomy. We evaluated the oncological results of a different minimally invasive surgery approach, that of laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) in this setting. Methods: From January 2001 to December 2018, patients with early-stage cervical cancer were treated by LARVH. Colpotomy and initial closure of the vagina were performed following the Schauta operation, avoiding manipulation of the tumor. Laparoscopic sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed in all cases. Women treated between 2001 and 2011 also underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy. Results: There were 115 patients included. Intraoperative complications occurred in nine patients (7.8%). After a median follow-up of 87.8 months (range 1–216), seven women (6%) ...
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Although a surgical approach is one of the key treatments for stages IA1-IIA2, results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) published in 2018 radically changed the field, since minimally invasive surgery was associated with a four-fold higher rate of recurrence and a six-fold higher rate of all-cause death compared to an open approach. We aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for cervical cancer, including data collected before the LACC trial. In our retrospective analysis, operative time was significantly longer in TLRH compared to ARH (p < 0.0001), although this disadvantage could be considered balanced by lower intra-operative estimated blood loss in TLRH compared with ARH (p < 0.0001). In addition, we did not find significant differences for intra-operative (p = 0.0874) and post-operative complication rates (p = 0.0727) between ARH and TLRH. This was not likely to be ...
International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer
IntroductionRecent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 (FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the HR for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with ...
Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2020
Background. Recently, it was reported that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has a negative impact on earlystage cervical cancer (ECC) patient survival. At the same time, advantages of MIS regarding quality of life and low rate of intra-and postoperative complications are well known. Therefore, it is essential to select patients who may benefit from MIS without worsening their oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate which pathological factors could guide surgeons' choice about the best approach in ECC. Patients and Methods. Patients with 2009 FIGO stage from IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) to IB1/IIA1 treated by open or laparoscopic surgery were judged eligible for the study. Disease-free survivals (DFS) of both approaches were tested in subgroups, defined according to histology, tumor size, grading, LVSI, parametrial involvement, and nodal status. Results. A total of 423 patients were enrolled (217 in the open and 206 in the laparoscopic group). No difference between open surgery and laparoscopy was found among subgroups defined according to histology, grading, LVSI, parametrial involvement, or nodal status. Among patients with tumor [ 20 mm, laparoscopy showed a significantly higher relapse risk [hazard ratio (HR): 2.103, p = 0.030]. Among patients with tumor \ 20 mm, laparoscopy showed DFS superimposable to open surgery (HR: 0.560, p = 0.128). Conclusions. Tumor size of 20 mm appeared as the only independent discrimination criterion in patients whose prognosis is affected by surgical approaches. Keywords Cervical cancer Á Minimally invasive surgery Á Open surgery Á Radical hysterectomy Á Laparoscopy Á Tumor diameter Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. 1,2 Traditionally, radical hysterectomy has been performed as open surgery through a laparotomy incision. However, since the first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was reported in 1992, 3 the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer has gained increasing interest. 4-7 Over the last 20 years, many retrospective studies compared patients affected by cervical cancer treated by MIS with those treated by open surgery, showing superimposable survival outcomes and lower operative morbidity of MIS. 2,8 Recently, the first randomized clinical trial investigating the noninferiority of MIS in comparison with open radical hysterectomy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) has
The impact of close surgical margins after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer
Gynecologic Oncology, 2013
Objective-While it is known that positive surgical margins increase the risk of cervical cancer recurrence, little is known about the effect of close surgical margins (CSM). Therefore, we set out to determine the impact of margin status on recurrence and survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods-A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2010 with Stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. CSM were defined as ≤5 mm; association with other clinicopathologic factors as well as recurrence and survival was evaluated. Results-Of the 119 patients, 75 (63%) with CSM had a recurrence rate of 24% compared to 9% without CSM. Though not independently associated with recurrence, CSM were significantly associated with positive lymph nodes (44% vs. 18%), positive parametria (33.3% vs. 2.3%), larger tumors (3.5 vs. 2.5 cm), greater depth of stromal invasion (DOI) (84% vs. 33%), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (61.3% vs. 34.1%). We failed to find an association between adjuvant therapy and recurrence in those with CSM. Exploratory analysis revealed that a surgical margin of ≤2 mm was significantly associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (36% vs. 9%, p=0.009) as well as loco-regional recurrence (22% vs. 4%, p=0.0034). Conclusions-Surgical margins of ≤5 mm on radical hysterectomy specimens are often associated with other high or intermediate risk factors for recurrence. While not a proven independent risk factor, the distance to surgical margin may warrant further investigation as an intermediate risk factor along with tumor size, DOI and LVSI.
Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
New England Journal of Medicine, 2018
BACKGROUND There are limited data from retrospective studies regarding whether survival outcomes after laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (minimally invasive surgery) are equivalent to those after open abdominal radical hysterectomy (open surgery) among women with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS In this trial involving patients with stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, or IB1 cervical cancer and a histologic subtype of squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, we randomly assigned patients to undergo minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. The primary outcome was the rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years, with noninferiority claimed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference (minimally invasive surgery minus open surgery) was greater than −7.2 percentage points (i.e., closer to zero). RESULTS A total of 319 patients were assigned to minimally invasive surgery and 312 to open surgery. Of the patients who were assigned to and underwent minimally invasive surgery, 84.4% underwent laparoscopy and 15.6% robot-assisted surgery. Overall, the mean age of the patients was 46.0 years. Most patients (91.9%) had stage IB1 disease. The two groups were similar with respect to histologic subtypes, the rate of lymphovascular invasion, rates of parametrial and lymph-node involvement, tumor size, tumor grade, and the rate of use of adjuvant therapy. The rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years was 86.0% with minimally invasive surgery and 96.5% with open surgery, a difference of −10.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −16.4 to −4.7). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of diseasefree survival than open surgery (3-year rate, 91.2% vs. 97.1%; hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death from cervical cancer, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.58), a difference that remained after adjustment for age, body-mass index, stage of disease, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph-node involvement; minimally invasive surgery was also associated with a lower rate of overall survival (3-year rate, 93.8% vs. 99.0%; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 6.00; 95% CI, 1.77 to 20.30). CONCLUSIONS In this trial, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of disease-free survival and overall survival than open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. (Funded by the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic; LACC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00614211.
Current Oncology
Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Chi-square and...