Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Group Research Articles

Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been used for cervical cancer treatment. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LRH and ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer to provide reliable evidence to the clinical cervical cancer treatment. Two investigators independently searched PubMed and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LRH and ARH for cervical cancer treatment up to May 31, 2022. The risk of bias assessment tool recommended by Cochrane library was used for quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Fourteen RCTs with a total of 1700 patients with cervical cancer were finally included. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with ARH, LRH reduced the intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]=-58.08; 95% CI, -70.91, -45.24), the time to first passage of flatus (MD=-14.50; 95% CI, -16.55, -12.44) (all P <0.05), and increase the number of lymph nodes removed (MD=3.47; 95% CI, 0.51, 6.43; P =0.02). There were no significant differences in the duration of surgery (MD=27.62; 95% CI, -6.26, 61.49), intraoperative complications (odd ratio [OR]=1.10; 95% CI, 0.17, 7.32), postoperative complications (OR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.33, 1.86), relapse rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 0.56, 3.74), and survival rate (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.52, 1.08) between LRH group and ARH group (all P >0.05). LRH has more advantages over ARH in the treatment of cervical cancer. Still, the long-term effects and safety of LRH and ARH need more high-quality, large-sample RCTs to be further verified.

Comparison of long-term bowel symptoms after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer

Introduction and hypothesisThe objective of this study was to compare the long-term bowel symptoms between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.MethodsA total of 207 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (79 underwent LRH and 128 underwent ARH) at Peking University First Hospital from January 2010 to August 2020 were enrolled and their bowel symptoms were investigated using the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory-8 (CRADI-8) of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20. The prevalence and severity of bowel symptoms were compared in the LRH and ARH groups, and multivariate analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with bowel symptoms.ResultsThere was no difference in the CRADI-8 scores between the two groups. However, the prevalence of straining at stool was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group (19.5% versus 1.3%, p<0.001), and the score was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group too (0.4 versus 0, p<0.001). The prevalence of incomplete defecation was significantly higher in the ARH group than in the LRH group (13.3% versus 3.8%, p=0.029), and the ARH group also had a significantly higher score than the LRH group (0.3 versus 0.1, p=0.028). Multivariate analysis showed that ARH and postoperative interval were independent risk factors for the development of straining at stool.ConclusionsPatients with cervical cancer who underwent ARH may be more likely to develop symptoms related to constipation than those who underwent LRH. This finding has to be interpreted with caution owing to the study design.

Survival Outcomes of Patients With Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer Who Undergo Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Versus Radiochemotherapy.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the survival outcomes among stage IB3 cervical cancer patients who undergo abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH)+pelvic lymphadenectomy ± para-aortic lymph node dissection versus radiochemotherapy (R-CT).MethodsBased on the large number of diagnoses and treatments for cervical cancer in the Chinese database, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the ARH group and R-CT group.ResultsThere were 590 patients with stage IB3 cervical cancer according to the FIGO 2018 staging system, with 470 patients in the ARH group and 120 patients in the R-CT group. The ARH and R-CT groups showed different 5-year OS and DFS rates in the total study population, and the 5-year OS and DFS rates in the R-CT group (n = 120) were lower than those in the ARH group (n = 470) (OS: 78.1% vs. 92.1%, p < 0.001; DFS: 71.6% vs. 90.3%, p < 0.001). R-CT was associated with a worse 5-year OS rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.401; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.875–6.167; p < 0.001) and DFS rate (HR = 3.440; 95% CI = 2.075–5.703; p < 0.001) by Cox multivariate analysis. After 1:3 PSM, the 5-year OS and DFS rates in the R-CT group (n = 108) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 280) (OS: 76.4% vs. 94.0%, p < 0.001; DFS: 69.3% vs. 92.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). R-CT was associated with a worse 5-year OS rate (HR = 4.071; 95% CI = 2.042–8.117; p < 0.001) and DFS rate (HR = 4.450; 95% CI = 2.441–8.113; p < 0.001) by Cox multivariate analysis.ConclusionOur study found that for FIGO 2018 stage IB3 cervical cancer patients, ARH resulted in better OS and DFS than R-CT.

Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study.

ObjectiveTo compare the 3-year oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer.MethodsBased on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in the China database, patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IB2 cervical cancer disease who underwent RRH and ARH from 2004 to 2018 were included. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to compare the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate between patients receiving RRH and those receiving ARH. The Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching were used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival.ResultsA total of 1,137 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study, including the RRH group (n = 468) and the ARH group (n = 669). The median follow-up time was 45 months (RRH group vs. ARH group: 24 vs. 60 months). Among the overall study population, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS and DFS between the RRH group and the ARH group (OS: 95.8% vs. 97.6% p = 0.244). The Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.394, 95% CI: 0.552–3.523, p = 0.482). However, RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 1.985, 95% CI: 1.078–3.655 p = 0.028). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS between the RRH group and the ARH group (96.6% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.470); however, the 3-year DFS of the RRH group was lower than that of the ARH group (91.0% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.025). The Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.622, 95% CI: 0.449–5.860 p = 0.461), but RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 2.498, 95% CI: 1.123–5.557 p = 0.025).ConclusionAmong patients with stage I A1 (LVSI +)-I B2 cervical cancer based on the FIGO 2018 staging system, RRH has a lower 3-year DFS than ARH, suggesting that RRH may not be suitable for early cervical cancer patients.

Discussion on the Treatment Strategy for Stage ⅡA1 Cervical Cancer (FIGO 2018).

ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the best treatment strategy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer patients by comparing the survival outcomes of two treatment methods: abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) with standard postoperative therapy and radio-chemotherapy (R-CT).MethodsPatients with FIGO2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent ARH or received R-CT were screened from the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in China (Four C) database. The recurrence cases between the two groups were analyzed. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients diagnosed with stage IIA1 cervical cancer in 47 hospitals in mainland China between 2004 and 2018 were compared by using propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsA total of 724 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the total study population, The R-CT group had higher recurrence (22.8% for the R-CT group and 11.2% for the ARH group, P<0.001) rates compared to the ARH group.The 5-year OS and DFS of the ARH group (n=658) were significantly higher than those of the R-CT group (n=66) (OS: 85.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.009; DFS: 79.2%vs. 70.5%, P=0.027). R-CT was associated with worse 5-year OS (HR=3.19, 95% CI: 1.592-6.956, P=0.001) and DFS (HR=2.089, 95% CI: 1.194-3.656, P=0.01). After 1:2 PSM, the 5-year OS and DFS of the ARH group (n=126) were significantly higher than those of the R-CT group (n=64) (OS:88.9% vs. 70.1%, P=0.04; DFS:82.8% vs. 69.8%, P=0.019). R-CT was still associated with worse 5-year OS (HR=2.391, 95% CI: 1.051-5.633, P=0.046) and DFS (HR=2.6, 95% CI: 1.25-5.409, P=0.011).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that for stage FIGO2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer patients, ARH offers better oncological outcomes than R-CT.

A multicenter noninferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2): study protocol of the LAUNCH 1 trial

BackgroundA retrospective study and a randomized controlled trial published in a high quality journal in late 2018 have shown that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RH) was associated with worse survival than abdominal RH among patients with early stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology, therefore this conclusion is pivotal. The current trial is designed to reconfirm whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent tumor-free technique. This paper reports the rationale, design, and implementation of the trial.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. A total of 690 patients with stage IA1 (with intravascular), and IA2 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of three years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed-up for at least five years. The primary endpoint will be 5-year progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints will include 5-year overall survival rates, recurrence rates, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgery-related complications, and quality of life.DiscussionThe results of the trial will provide valuable evidence for guiding clinical decision of choosing appropriate treatment strategies for stage IA1 (LVSI) and stage IA2 cervical cancer patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04934982, Registered on 22 June 2021).

A multicenter non-inferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1): study protocol of the LAUNCH 2 trial

BackgroundA retrospective study and a randomized controlled trial published in late 2018 have shown that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RH) was associated with worse survival than abdominal RH among patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology; therefore, this conclusion is pivotal. The current trial is designed to reconfirm whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent surgical oncologic principles.Methods/designThis is an investigator-initiated, Prospective, Randomized, Open, Blinded End-point (PROBE)-controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 780 patients with stage IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of 3 years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed up for at least 5 years. The primary endpoint will be 5-year progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, recurrence, and quality of life measurements.DiscussionThe debate on laparoscopic versus abdominal RH is still ongoing, and high-quality evidences are needed to guide clinical practice. The study results will provide more convincing evidence-based information for early-stage cervical cancer patients and their gynecologic cancer surgeons in their choice of surgical method.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT04929769. Registered on 18 June 2021

Surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and radical abdominal hysterectomy for IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer

ObjectiveTo compare sugrical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH). MethodsAll the patients with IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer who performed LRH or RAH in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between 1/2016 and 12/2017 were retrospectively analyzed. ResultsThere were no significant differences between LRH and RAH groups except deep stromal invasion (35.2% vs 54.4%, p = 0.000), operating time (232.3 ± 61.9 min vs. 106.7 ± 36.2 min, p = 0.000), blood loss (169.5 ± 96.2 ml vs. 219.6 ± 149.3 ml, p = 0.000), and lymph node counts (21.1 ± 7.1 vs. 23.2 ± 8.7 min, p = 0.012). The LRH group displayed poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year rate, 79.4% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.046) and overall survival (OS) (5-year rate, 74.7% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.026) compared to the RAH group. On multivariate analysis, LRH was an independent risk factor for DFS (hazard ratio, 0.377; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.227–0.625; p = 0.000) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% CI, 0.254–0.740; p = 0.003). ConclusionsLRH affected the survival of cervical cancer patients with tumor size >2 cm (p < 0.05). Adjuvant therapy could not improve the prognosis of laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05).

Trends in Surgical Morbidity and Survival Outcomes for Radical Hysterectomy in West China: An 11-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.

ObjectivesTo vertically analyze the trend of surgical approaches, demographics, surgical morbidity, and long-term survival outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer over the past 11 years and to determine whether there have been any significant changes.MethodsA total of 851 patients with consecutive International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA–IIA cervical cancer diagnosed between January 2008 and June 2018 at a single center in China were included in this retrospective study. Trends in the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), demographics, surgical morbidities, and long-term survival outcomes were determined. We categorized patients into two groups according to their year of operation. The demographics, pathological factors, surgical morbidity, and long-term survival outcomes were compared between these two groups.ResultsRegarding the surgical approach, there was a significant increase in the rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) performed over the study period, from 7.8% in 2008 to 72.5% in 2018 (p < 0.0001). The mean age of patients who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) has increased slightly from 2008 to 2018, and those who underwent ARH in the second half of the study period (2014–2018) were significantly older (45.01 vs. 47.50 years; p = 0.001). The most impressive changes over the past 11 years have occurred in the surgical morbidity in both the ARH and LRH groups. The overall surgical morbidity decreased from 29.2% in 2008 to 11.9% in 2018, with an annual rate of 1.57%. The median estimated blood loss volume of the ARH group was 500 ml (range 50–2,000) in the first few years compared to 400 ml (30–2500) in the last few years of the study period (p < 0.0001), which in the LRH group was 350 ml (range 150–800) and 150 ml (range 5–1,000), respectively (p < 0.0001). Similarly, allogeneic blood transfusions and hospital stay have all decreased dramatically over time in both approaches. On the other hand, our study did not reveal any significant statistical changes in long-term survival outcomes over the follow-up period in either group.ConclusionsThe findings of our study demonstrate that great progress in surgically managed cervical cancer has been made over the last decade in West China. Our retrospective study demonstrated that the year of operation does not appear to influence the long-term survival, but the surgical morbidity impressively decreased over the study period in both the ARH and LRH groups, which reflects that the higher hospital surgical volume for radical hysterectomy (RH) was not associated with lower survival outcomes but related to the reduction of surgical morbidity.

Efficacy evaluation of vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-center retrospective case series study.

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.

Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Using the No-Look No-Touch Technique for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis.

Simple SummaryMinimally invasive radical hysterectomy is contraindicated in early stage cervical cancer cases because of poor prognosis. The no-look no-touch technique (NLNT) eliminates intraoperative tumor spillage and may improve survival outcomes. We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy performed using NLNT. We compared the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and NLNT using inverse probability of treatment weighting. We found no significant differences in disease-free survival between the groups, even in patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm. We also studied NLNT’s non-inferiority to abdominal radical hysterectomy by evaluating heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and those of our study. We did not observe significant heterogeneity, although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study compared with the non-inferiority margin in the LACC trial. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT is a plausible alternative surgical treatment for early stage cervical cancer.We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using the no-look no-touch technique (NLNT). We analyzed patients with early stage (IA2, IB1, and IIA1, FIGO2008) cervical cancer treated between December 2014 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). We compared the outcomes of the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and NLNT groups using a Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), according to propensity scores. We also evaluated NLNT’s non-inferiority to ARH using an evaluation of heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and our study. ARH and NLNT were performed in 118 and 113 patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After IPTW adjustment, the 3-year DFS rates (NLNT 92.4%; ARH 94.0%) and overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Furthermore, the 3-year DFS rates for patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm in the NLNT (85.0%) and ARH (90.3%) groups did not differ significantly. No significant heterogeneity was observed between the LACC trial and our study (I2 = 60.5%, p = 0.111), although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT provides a favorable prognosis for early stage cervical cancer.

Comparison of survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and radiochemotherapy IIA2 (FIGO2018) cervical cancer: a retrospective study from a large database of 63,926 cases of cervical cancer in China.

This study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year DFS disease-free survival (DFS) of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and radiochemotherapy (R-CT) for stage IIA2 (FIGO 2018) cervical cancer patients. Based on this multicenter, retrospective cohort study based on data from the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China (Four C) database, 609 cases with 2018 FIGO stage IIA2 cervical cancer from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. The 5-year OS and 5-year DFS of patients with either of the two treatment methods were compared by means of a multivariate Cox regression model and the log-rank method in the total study population and after propensity score matching (PSM). We selected 609 of 63,926 patients and found that R-CT was associated with a significantly worse 5-year OS (71.8% vs. 95.3%, P < 0.001; hazard ratio (HR) = 6.596, 95% CI 3.524-12.346) and 5-year DFS (69.4% vs. 91.4%, P < 0.001; HR = 4.132, 95% CI 2.570-6.642, P < 0.001) than ARH in the total study population. After matching (n = 230/230), among FIGO 2018 IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS were lower in the R-CT group than in the ARH group (OS: 73.9% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001; HR = 5.633, 95% CI 2.826-11.231, P < 0.001; DFS: 69.2% vs. 91.1%, P < 0.001; HR = 3.978, 95% CI 2.336-6.773, P < 0.001, respectively). In patients with stage FIGO 2018 IIA2 cervical cancer, ARH offers better 5-year OS and DFS outcomes than R-CT; however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective studies, this needs to be confirmed by randomized trials.

Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience

ObjectiveTo compare long-term oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients treated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), with a focus on recurrence patterns, tumor sizes, and conization. MethodsThis single-institution, retrospective study consisted of stage IA1-IB1 (FIGO 2009) squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2000 and 2017. ResultsOf the 582 patients included, 353 (60.7%) underwent ARH, and 229 (39.3%) MIRH. The median follow-up was 14.4 years in the ARH group and 6.1 years in the MIRH group (p < 0.0001). Among the 96 stage IA patients, only 3 (3.1%) experienced recurrence. Among stage IB1 patients, the risk of recurrence, after adjusting for standard prognostic variables, was twofold higher in the MIRH group versus the ARH group (HR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.56–4.80), and the relative difference was similar in terms of risk of cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.28–7.20) and overall survival (OS) (HR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.21–4.59). In stage IB1 ≤ 2 cm patients without conization MIRH was associated with reduced time to recurrence (TTR) (HR 4.00, 95% CI: 1.67–9.57), CSS (HR 3.71, 95% CI: 1.19–11.58) and OS (HR 3.02, 95% CI: 1.24–7.34). Intraperitoneal combined recurrences accounted for 12 of 30 (40.0%) recurrences in the MIRH group but were not identified after ARH (p = 0.0001). ConclusionsMIRH was associated with reduced TTR, CSS and OS versus ARH in stage IB1 CC patients. The risk of peritoneal recurrence was high, even for tumors ≤2 cm without conization.

Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience.

To assess and compare the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for women with cervical cancer (CC) treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) approaches in Bulgaria. We retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically diagnosed CC operated via ARH or RRH methods during January-2008 to April-2019. The data analyzed include patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). There were consecutive 1347 patients (ARH = 1006, RRH = 341), which formed the basis of study analyses. Women in the RRH group had significantly shorter median hospital length-of-stay than ARH cases (7 vs. 11days, p < 0.001), higher post-operative hemoglobin (116 vs. 108g/L, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (7.3% vs. 21.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. The overall incidence of post-operative complications was also lower in the RRH vs. ARH group (2.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Median follow-up time for ARH vs. RRH groups was 4.32 vs. 5.24years, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the RRH cohort had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the ARH group (CC-specific death 8.5% vs. 16.5% respectively). Mean time to recurrence did not differ significantly in either surgical approach (p = 0.495). Cox multivariate regression showed no significant impact of surgical approach on DFS or OS. No significant difference in DFS or OS between ARH vs. RRH for CC was observed. RRH approach does not lead to inferior oncologic outcomes and is associated with better peri-operative outcomes. In regard to "all stages" of CC, we found robotic surgery safer compared to laparotomy, and thus consider RRH a better surgical treatment option for patients with CC.

The incidence of urologic complications requiring urologic procedure in radical hysterectomy and difference between abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence of urologic complications requiring a urologic procedure during the perioperative period and compare the differences between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).MethodsWe identified all Korean women who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) between January 2006 and December 2019 using the National Health Insurance Service database. Complications requiring surgical intervention-based urologic procedures between ARH and LRH were investigated.ResultsA total of 12,068 patients were classified into the ARH group and 8,837 patients were classified into the LRH group. Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures occurred in 1,546 of 20,905 patients (7.40%) who underwent RH. The most common urologic procedure was double-J insertion (R326, 5.18%), followed by bladder repair (R3550, 0.90%). There was no significant difference in urologic complications requiring urologic procedures between the ARH and LRH groups (odds ratio [OR]=1.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.925–1.141; p=0.612). The incidence of bladder repair (R3550) was significantly higher in patients who underwent LRH (OR=1.620; 95% CI=1.220–2.171; p<0.001). Urologic complications requiring urologic procedures were statistically higher in the LRH group during the first half (OR=1.446; 95% CI=1.240–1.685; p<0.001), but more in the ARH group during the second half (OR=0.696; 95% CI=0.602–0.804; p<0.001) of the study period.ConclusionThere was no difference of urologic complications between ARH and LRH with regard to urologic procedures. The incidence of urologic procedures decreases with time in patients who underwent LRH.

A Comparison of Laparoscopies and Laparotomies for Radical Hysterectomy in Stage IA1-IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Single Team With 18 Years of Experience.

ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in managing early-stage cervical cancer.MethodsThis retrospective study comprised patients with FIGO stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), IA2, and IB1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy performed by a single gynecologic oncology team at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from 2000–2018. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe ARH and LRH groups consisted of 84 and 172 patients, respectively. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 89.3 and 95.9% in the ARH and LRH groups (P = 0.122, adjusted HR = 0.449, 95% CI: 0.162–1.239), respectively, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 95.2 and 98.8%, respectively (P = 0.578, adjusted HR = 0.650, 95% CI: 0.143–2.961). The presence of more than two comorbidities led to poor OS (P = 0.011). For patients with a BMI greater than 24 kg/m2, LRH was associated with better PFS (P = 0.039). Compared with ARH, LRH was associated with a shorter operation time (248.8 vs. 176.9 min, P < 0.001), less blood loss (670.2 vs. 200.9 ml, P < 0.001), and lower postoperative ileus rates (2.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.042). No significant differences were observed in PFS and OS between 2006–2012, 2013–2015, and 2016–2018 in the LRH group (P = 0.126 and P = 0.583).ConclusionCompared with ARH, LRH yields similar survival and improved surgical outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. LRH is not inferior to ARH for select cervical cancer patients treated by a single team with adequate laparoscopy experience.

Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

IntroductionRecent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the...

Comparative study on the oncological prognosis of laparoscopy and laparotomy for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma

ObjectiveTo compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. MethodsBased on a large database containing information on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China, the oncological outcomes of the two surgical approaches for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM). ResultsAfter 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 510 patients were included in the LRH group, and 999 patients were included in the ARH group. LRH showed a similar 5-year OS but a lower DFS rate (81.3% vs. 87.4%, P = 0.018) than ARH. In the multivariate analysis, LRH was identified as an independent risk factor for worse 5-year DFS (HR = 1.569, 95% CI: 1.131–2.176, P = 0.007). Among patients with a tumour size <2 cm, the LRH and ARH groups showed similar OS and DFS rates after 1:2 PSM, and multivariate analysis showed that the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the OS or DFS rate. Among patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, there was no difference in OS between the LRH and ARH groups after matching, but the DFS in the LRH group was significantly lower than that in the ARH group (81.1% vs 86.2%, P = 0.034). In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic approach was not associated with OS but was independently associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.546, 95% CI: 1.094–2.185, P = 0.014). ConclusionsLRH was associated with poorer 5-year DFS than ARH in patients with stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. However, LRH showed 5-year OS and DFS rates similar to those of ARH among patients with a tumour size <2 cm. For patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, LRH showed a lower DFS rate than ARH.

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter

BackgroundEarly stage cervical cancer is prevalent in China and remains a major public health burden in developing countries. We aimed to determine the long term oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and...

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China

IntroductionRecently, the safety of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of cervical cancer has been questioned. This study was designed to compare the disease-free survival and overall survival of abdominal...