Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer (original) (raw)
Related papers
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
Radical hysterectomy in the elderly
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2008
Background The considerable increase in life expectancy on one hand and an increase in cervical cancer among Iranian patients on the other, brings out the importance of investigating whether radical surgery can be performed safely and effectively on patients above 60 years of age. Methods In a study of historical cohort, all 22 patients 60 years and above who have undergone a Wertheim radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 1999 to 2005 were compared with 128 matched cases under 60 years of age who had undergone a Wertheim hysterectomy during the same calendar year. All patients were analyzed for preexisting medical comorbidities, length of postoperative stay, morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Results There was no operative mortality in either group, morbidity (minor, p = 0.91; major, p = 0.89) were statistically not different in the two groups despite the patient's above 60 years having significantly higher comorbidity prior to surgery than the younger cohort (minor...
Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2016
The radical hysterectomy (RH) surgical technique has improved along the years. It is used for the treatment of cervical cancer, endometrial cancer when affecting the cervix, and upper vaginal carcinomas. Our aim was to describe the historical evolution of the technique after the introduction of laparoscopy at our institution. We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent RH, grouped in three periods according to the year of surgery: 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2013. Patients?characteristics, pathologic details, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared throughout the time periods. A total of 102 cases of RH were performed at our center during the study period. Among all data collected, the presence of necrosis, age, number of lymph nodes, surgery route, operating time, hospital stay, blood loss and transfusion requirement were statistically significant different among groups. Conversion to laparotomy rate was 19% f...
International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 2004
Background. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) with that of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for early-stage cervical cancer. Methods. Patients affected by invasive cervical cancer (FIGO stage I-IIA) who had received LARVH (n = 89) in our institute between September 2004 and December 2010 were compared with patients treated by LRH (n = 105) during the same period. All patient information, surgical and pathological data, and oncological results were prospectively collected. Patients undergoing abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) were included for comparison of safety, morbidity, and recurrence rate. Results. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) and return of bowel activity were significantly reduced in the LRH group compared with the LARVH group (p = .011 and p = .002, respectively). Intraoperative complications occurred in 10 patients (11.2 %) in the LARVH group, 6 (5.7 %) in the LRH group, and 3 (3.0 %) in the ARH group. Forest plot analyses of the previous studies showed higher incidence of intraoperative complication in the LARVH group than in LRH group (p = .02). Despite the Chel Hun Choi and Jeong-Won Lee contributed equally to this paper.
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.
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology
Objective: Total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (TL-NSRH) has been considered a promising approach, however, surgical, clinical, oncological and functional outcomes have not been systematically addressed. We present a large retrospective multicenter experience comparing TL-NSRH vs. open abdominal NSRH (OA-NSRH) for early and locally-advanced cervical cancer, with particular emphasis on post-surgical pelvic function. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent class C1-NSRH plus bilateral pelvic + paraaortic lymphadenectomy for stage IA2-IIB cervical cancer at 4 Italian gynecologic oncologic centers (Negrar, Varese, Bologna, Avellino) were enrolled. Patients were divided into TL-NSRH and OA-NSRH groups and were investigated with preoperative questionnaires on urinary, rectal and sexual function. Postoperatively, patients filled a questionnaire assessing quality of life, taking into account sexual function and psychological status. Oncological outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meyer method. Results: 301 consecutive patients were included in this study: 170 in the TL-NSRH group and 131 in the OA-NSRH group. Patients in the OA-NSRH group were more likely to experience urinary incontinence and (after 12-months follow-up) urinary retention. No patient in the TL-NSRH group vs. 5 (5.5%) in the OA-NSRH group had complete urinary retention (at the >24-month follow-up [p=0.02]). A total of 20 (11.8%) in the TL-NSRH and 11 (8.4%) patients in the OA-NSRH had recurrence of disease (p=0.44) and 14 (8.2%) and 9 (6.9%) died of disease during follow-up, respectively (p=0.83). Conclusion: Our study shows that TL-NSRH is feasible, safe and effective and conjugates adequate radicality and improvement in post-operative functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic procedures deserve further investigation.