» Articles » PMID: 36293758

Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy and Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of Data Collected Before the LACC Trial

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Oct 27
PMID 36293758
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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 ( < 0.0001), although this disadvantage could be considered balanced by lower intra-operative estimated blood loss in TLRH compared with ARH ( < 0.0001). In addition, we did not find significant differences for intra-operative ( = 0.0874) and post-operative complication rates ( = 0.0727) between ARH and TLRH. This was not likely to be influenced by age and Body Mass Index, since they were comparable in the two groups ( = 0.0798 and = 0.4825, respectively). Finally, mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved ( = 0.153) and nodal metastases ( = 0.774), as well as death rate ( = 0.5514) and recurrence rate ( = 0.1582) were comparable between the two groups. Future studies should be aimed at assessing whether different histology/grades of cervical cancer, as well as particular subpopulations, may have significantly different outcomes using minimally invasive surgery or laparotomy, with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Citing Articles

Survival status of women with cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2024.

Emagneneh T, Mulugeta C, Ejigu B, Alamrew A, Hiwot A, Feleke S Front Oncol. 2025; 14():1491840.

PMID: 39839767 PMC: 11746072. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1491840.


Effects of amide proton transfer imaging in diagnosis, grading and prognosis prediction of cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yang C, Hassan H, Omar N, Soo T, Shuib Bin Yahaya A, Shi T Heliyon. 2025; 10(22):e40291.

PMID: 39748993 PMC: 11693897. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40291.


Clinical Performance and Safety of Cerviron® Vaginal Ovules in the Management of Symptomatic Cervical Lesions: A National, Multicentric Study.

Petre I, Toader D, Petrita R, Pinta A, Alexa A, Bita R Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024; 101:100762.

PMID: 39717511 PMC: 11665293. DOI: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2024.100762.


Prognostic nomograms for locally advanced cervical cancer based on the SEER database: Integrating Cox regression and competing risk analysis.

Zhang Y, Meng Y, Xu X, Shi Q Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(45):e40408.

PMID: 39533612 PMC: 11557032. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040408.


Based on 3D-PDU and clinical characteristics nomogram for prediction of lymph node metastasis and lymph-vascular space invasion of early cervical cancer preoperatively.

Dong S, Peng Y, Feng Y, Li X, Gong L, Zhang S BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):438.

PMID: 39090652 PMC: 11295498. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03281-y.


References
1.
Okazawa M, Mabuchi S, Isohashi F, Suzuki O, Yoshioka Y, Sasano T . Impact of the addition of concurrent chemotherapy to pelvic radiotherapy in surgically treated stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk factors: a 13-year experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013; 23(3):567-75. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31828703fd. View

2.
Chuang L, Temin S, Camacho R, Duenas-Gonzalez A, Feldman S, Gultekin M . Management and Care of Women With Invasive Cervical Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Resource-Stratified Clinical Practice Guideline. J Glob Oncol. 2017; 2(5):311-340. PMC: 5493265. DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.003954. View

3.
Park J, Nam J . How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial?. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018; 29(4):e74. PMC: 5981115. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e74. View

4.
Nishino M . Tumor Response Assessment for Precision Cancer Therapy: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Beyond. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018; 38:1019-1029. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_201441. View

5.
Melamed A, Ramirez P . Changing treatment landscape for early cervical cancer: outcomes reported with minimally invasive surgery compared with an open approach. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 32(1):22-27. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000598. View