Advertisement

Comparison of outcomes between abdominal, minimally invasive and combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with stage IAI/IA2 cervical cancer: 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) study

      Highlights

      • There was no difference in RFS by surgical approach (MIS/open/CVLH) in patients with Stage IA1/IA2 cervical cancer.
      • This suggests that for microinvasive cervical cancer, MIS is safe and feasible.
      • Similar results were found in patients with Stage IAI LVSI+/IA2.
      • There were no differences in peri-operative complications between surgical groups.
      • Patients undergoing MIS had a shorter median length of stay but more ER visits.

      Abstract

      Objective

      Although minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIS-H) has been associated with worse survival compared to abdominal hysterectomy (AH) for cervical cancer, only 8% of patients in the LACC trial had microinvasive disease (Stage IA1/IA2). We sought to determine differences in outcome among patients undergoing MIS-H, AH or combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy (CVLH) for microinvasive cervical cancer.

      Methods

      A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing hysterectomy (radical and non radical) for FIGO 2018, microinvasive cervical cancer across 10 Canadian centers between 2007 and 2019 was performed. Recurrence free survival (RFS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier Survival analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare outcomes.

      Results

      423 patients with microinvasive cervical cancer were included; 259 (61.2%) Stage IA1 (22/8.5% with LVSI) and 164(38.8%) IA2. The median age was 44 years (range 24–81). The most frequent histology was squamous (59.4%). Surgical approach was: 50.1% MIS-H (robotic or laparoscopic), 35.0% AH and 14.9% CVLH. Overall, 70.9% underwent radical hysterectomy and 76.5% had pelvic lymph node assessment. There were 16 recurrences (MIS-H:4, AH:9, CVLH: 3). No significant difference in 5-year RFS was found (96.7% MIS-H, 93.7% AH, 90.0% CVLH, p = 0.34).
      In a sub-analysis of patients with IA1 LVSI+/IA2(n = 186), survival results were similar. Further, there was no significant difference in peri-operative complications (p = 0.19). Patients undergoing MIS-H had a shorter median length of stay(0 days vs 3 (AH) vs. 1.5 (CVLH), p < 0.001), but had more ER visits (16.0% vs 3.6% (AH), 3.5% (CVLH), p = 0.036).

      Conclusion

      In this cohort, including only patients with microinvasive cervical cancer, no difference in recurrence was found by surgical approach. This may be due to the low rate of recurrence making differences hard to detect or due to a true lack of difference. Hence, this patient population may benefit from MIS without compromising oncologic outcomes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim K.
        • Park S.J.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of abdominal versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the postdissemination era.
        Cancer Res. Treat. 2019; 51: 788-796
        • Piedimonte S.
        • Czuzoj-Shulman N.
        • Gotlieb W.
        • Abenhaim H.A.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical Cancer: a population-based study of adoption and immediate postoperative outcomes in the United States.
        J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26: 551-557
        • Zhou J.
        • Xiong B.H.
        • Ma L.
        • Cheng Y.
        • Huang W.
        • Zhao L.
        Robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.
        Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 2016; 12: 145-154
        • Jin Y.M.
        • Liu S.S.
        • Chen J.
        • Chen Y.N.
        • Ren C.C.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13e0193033
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Pareja R.
        • et al.
        Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
        2018
        • Melamed A.
        • Margul D.A.-O.
        • Chen L.
        • et al.
        Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
        2018
        • Abu-Rustum N.R.
        • Yashar C.M.
        • Bean S.
        • et al.
        NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020.
        J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2020; 18: 660-666
      1. Eupdate – Cervical Cancer Treatment Recommendations. 2020
        • Chiva L.A.-O.
        • Zanagnolo V.
        • Querleu D.
        • et al.
        SUCCOR Study: An International European Cohort Observational Study Comparing Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Stage IB1 Cervical cancer.
        2020
        • Matanes E.
        • Abitbol J.
        • Kessous R.
        • et al.
        Oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic versus open radical hysterectomy for cervical Cancer.
        J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2019; 41: 450-458
        • Cusimano M.C.
        • Baxter N.N.
        • Gien L.T.
        • et al.
        Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
        2019
        • Nitecki R.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • et al.
        Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 1019-1027
        • Covens A.
        • Rosen B.
        • Murphy J.
        • et al.
        How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix?.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2002; 84: 145-149
        • Qian Q.
        • Yang J.
        • Cao D.
        • You Y.
        • Chen J.
        • Shen K.
        Analysis of treatment modalities and prognosis on microinvasive cervical cancer: a 10-year cohort study in China.
        J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 25: 293-300
        • Willows K.
        • Lennox G.
        • Covens A.
        Fertility-sparing management in cervical cancer: balancing oncologic outcomes with reproductive success.
        Gynecol. Oncol. Res. Pract. 2016; 3: 9
        • Nick A.M.
        • Frumovitz M.M.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        Fertility sparing surgery for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer: open vs. robotic radical trachelectomy.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2012; 124: 276-280
        • Matsuo K.
        • Mandelbaum R.S.
        • Klar M.
        • et al.
        Decreasing utilization of minimally invasive hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2021; 162: 43-49
        • Peters 3rd, W.A.
        • Liu P.Y.
        • Barrett 2nd, R.J.
        • et al.
        Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix.
        J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2000; 18: 1606-1613
        • Rotman M.
        • Sedlis A.
        • Piedmonte M.R.
        • et al.
        A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in Stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006; 65: 169-176
        • Nica A.
        • Kim S.R.
        • Gien L.T.
        • et al.
        Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2020; 30: 1864-1870
        • Nasioudis D.
        • Albright B.B.
        • Ko E.M.
        • et al.
        Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2021; 31: 983-990
        • Kohler C.
        • Hertel H.
        • Herrmann J.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff - a multicenter analysis.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2019; 29: 845-850
        • Chen B.
        • Ji M.
        • Li P.
        • et al.
        Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.
        Gynecol. Oncol. 2020; 157: 429-436
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • Pareja R.
        • Lopez Blanco A.
        • et al.
        ConCerv: a prospective trial of conservative surgery for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2021; 31: 1317-1325
        • Deura I.
        • Kanamori R.
        • Nagasawa Y.
        • et al.
        A simple technique of vaginal cuff closure to prevent tumor cell spillage in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for uterine cervical cancer.
        Asian J. Endoscopic Surg. 2021; 14: 665-668
        • Nelson G.
        • Bakkum-Gamez J.
        • Kalogera E.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations-2019 update.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2019; 29: 651-668
        • Ore A.S.
        • Shear M.A.
        • Liu F.W.
        • et al.
        Adoption of enhanced recovery after laparotomy in gynecologic oncology.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2020; 30: 122-127
        • Bhandoria G.P.
        • Bhandarkar P.
        • Ahuja V.
        • et al.
        Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: an international survey of peri-operative practice.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2020; 30: 1471-1478
        • Nelson G.
        • Wang X.
        • Nelson A.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the implementation of multiple enhanced recovery after surgery pathways across a provincial health care system in Alberta, Canada.
        JAMA Netw. Open. 2021; 4e2119769
        • Kim S.R.
        • Laframboise S.
        • Nelson G.
        • et al.
        Enhanced recovery after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery to improve same day discharge: a quality improvement project.
        Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2022; 32: 457-465
      2. Philp L, Covens A, Vicus D, Kupets R, Pulman K, Gien LT. Feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervix cancer.