Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundAfter the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have undergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with different surgical approaches. MethodsA systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2. ResultsThe research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602–1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467–1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331–1.407; p = 0.630), respectively. ConclusionThere are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment.