-
Gynecologic Oncology Sep 2022Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery...
BACKGROUND
Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy are considered the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). Minimal Invasive approach to this surgery has been debated after the publication of a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC trial). It demonstrated poorer oncological outcomes for Minimal Invasive Surgery in ECC. However, the reasons are still an open debate. Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVRH) seems to be a logical option to Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy (ARH). This meta-analysis has the aim to prove it.
METHODS
Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Pubmed database and Scopus database were systematically searched in January 2022 since early first publications. No limitation of the country was made. Only English article were considered. The studies containing data about Disease-free Survival (DFS) and/or Overall Survival (OS) and/or Recurrence Rate (RcR) were included.
RESULTS
18 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 8 comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning surgical approach (Laparo-Assisted Vaginal Radical Hysterectomy) and compared with ARH Oncological outcomes such as DFS and OS were considered. 3033 patiets were included. Meta-analysis highlighted a non-statistic significant difference between LARVH and ARH (RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.55-1.23] p = 0.34; I = 0%; p = 0.96). OS was feasible only for 3 studies (RR 1.14 [95% CI 0.28-4.67] p = 0.43; I = 0 p = 0.86). Data about the type of recurrences (loco-regional vs distant) were collected.
CONCLUSION
LARVH does not appear to affect DFS and OS in ECC patients. The proposed results seem to be comparable with the open approach group of the LACC trial, which today represents the reference standard for the treatment of this pathology. More studies will be needed to test the safety and efficacy of LARVH in the ECC.
PubMed: 36150915
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.09.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2015. Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Many new cervical cancer cases in low-income countries present at an advanced stage. Standard care in Europe and the US for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is chemoradiotherapy. In low-income countries, with limited access to radiotherapy, LACC may be treated with chemotherapy and hysterectomy. It is not certain if this improves survival. It is important to assess the value of hysterectomy with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, as an alternative.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether hysterectomy, in addition to standard treatment with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC (Stage IB to III) is safe and effective compared with standard treatment alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, LILACS, trial registries and the grey literature up to 3 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments involving hysterectomy versus radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both, in women with LACC International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stages IB to III.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) survival in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Adverse events (AEs) were incompletely reported and we described the results of single trials in narrative form. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
From the searches we identified 968 studies. After deduplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, we included 11 RCTs (2683 women) of varying methodological quality. This update identified four new RCTs and three ongoing RCTs. The included studies compared: hysterectomy (simple or radical) with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) alone or CCRT and brachytherapy. There is also one ongoing study comparing three groups: hysterectomy with CCRT versus hysterectomy with NACT versus CCRT. There were two comparison groups for which we were able to do a meta-analysis. Hysterectomy (radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone Two RCTs with similar design characteristics (620 and 633 participants) found no difference in five-year OS between NACT with hysterectomy versus CCRT. Meta-analysis assessing 1253 participants found no evidence of a difference in risk of death (OS) between women who received NACT plus hysterectomy and those who received CCRT alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16; moderate-certainty evidence). In both studies, the five-year DFS in the NACT plus surgery group was worse (57%) compared with the CCRT group (65.6%), mostly for Stage IIB. Results of single trials reported no apparent difference in long-term severe complications, grade 3 acute toxicity and severe late toxicity between groups (very low-quality evidence). Hysterectomy (simple or radical) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radiotherapy alone Meta-analysis of three trials of NACT with hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone, assessing 571 participants, found that women who received NACT plus hysterectomy had less risk of death (OS) than those who received radiotherapy alone (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, a significant number of participants who received NACT plus hysterectomy also had radiotherapy. There was no difference in the proportion of women with disease progression or recurrence (DFS and PFS) between NACT plus hysterectomy and radiotherapy groups (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.05; I = 20%; moderate-quality evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low or very-low for all other comparisons for all outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the available RCTs, we found insufficient evidence that hysterectomy with radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, improves the survival of women with LACC who are treated with radiotherapy or CCRT alone. The overall certainty of the evidence was variable across the different outcomes and was universally downgraded due to concerns about risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for NACT and radical hysterectomy versus radiotherapy alone for survival outcomes was moderate. The same occurred for the comparison involving NACT and hysterectomy compared with CCRT alone. Evidence from other comparisons was generally sparse and of low or very low-certainty. This was mainly based on poor reporting and sparseness of data where results were based on single trials. More trials assessing medical management with and without hysterectomy may test the robustness of the findings of this review as further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35994243
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010260.pub3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022To compare cervical cancer recurrence and patient survival after radical hysterectomy followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or adjuvant radiotherapy with or...
Cervical Cancer Recurrence and Patient Survival After Radical Hysterectomy Followed by Either Adjuvant Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Radiotherapy With Optional Concurrent Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare cervical cancer recurrence and patient survival after radical hysterectomy followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy (AR/CCRT).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies reporting recurrence or survival of cervical cancer patients who received AC or AR/CCRT after radical hysterectomy. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the test. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 14 non-randomized studies and two randomized controlled trials, altogether involving 5,052 cervical cancer patients. AC and AR/CCRT groups did not differ significantly in rates of total or local recurrence or mortality. Nevertheless, AC was associated with significantly lower risk of distant recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.81] and higher rates of overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.85] and disease-free survival rate (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
AC may be an effective alternative to AR/CCRT for cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy, especially younger women who wish to preserve their ovaries and protect them from radiation damage.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021252518).
PubMed: 35311123
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.823064 -
Gynecologic Oncology Jul 2023Conization plays a therapeutic and diagnostic role in cervical cancer. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Conization plays a therapeutic and diagnostic role in cervical cancer. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with cervical cancer who underwent hysterectomy with versus without preoperative cervical conization.
METHODS
In this meta-analysis, we analyzed studies published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and Clinical Trials. gov that appeared in our search from inception to May 1, 2022.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with 4184 participants were included in this review. There were 2122 patients in the preoperative conization group and 2062 patients in the non-conization group. The meta-analysis showed that disease free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.12-0.44; 1616 participants; P = 0.030) and overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.33-0.86; 1835 participants; P = 0.597) were improved in the preoperative conization group compared with those in the non-conization group. The risk for recurrence was lower in the preoperative conization group than in the non-conization group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48; 1099 participants; P = 0.434). There was no significant statistical difference regarding intraoperative adverse events (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.18-3.70; 530 participants; P = 0.555) and postoperative adverse events (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.54-2.85; 530 participants; P = 0.170) between the preoperative conization group and non-conization group. In subgroup analysis, patients who benefited more from preoperative conization, had underwent minimally invasive surgery, had smaller local tumor lesions, and had no lymph node involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative conization before radical hysterectomy may have a protective effect in the treatment of early cervical cancer, with better survival and less recurrence, especially when the patient is at an early stage and undergoes minimally invasive surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Conization; Progression-Free Survival; Hysterectomy; Neoplasm Staging; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 37207501
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.05.004 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Mar 2024The investigation of the role of preoperative conization in cervical cancer aiming to explore its potential clinical significance. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The investigation of the role of preoperative conization in cervical cancer aiming to explore its potential clinical significance.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science, up to April 28, 2023.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
(1) Observational cohort studies, (2) studies comparing radical hysterectomy with preoperative conization (CO) vs radical hysterectomy without preoperative conization (NCO) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing disease-free survival outcomes.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The meta-analysis used combined hazard ratios along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals to compare CO and NCO. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to compare minimally invasive CO, open CO, minimally invasive NCO, and open NCO. Our study included 15 retrospective trials, 10 of which were used to traditional pairwise meta-analysis and 8 for network meta-analysis. The NCO group exhibited a notably higher probability of cancer recurrence than the CO group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.65). In the network meta-analysis, minimally invasive NCO showed the worst survival outcome.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative conization seems to be a protective factor in decreasing recurrence risk, assisting clinicians in predicting survival outcomes for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. It may potentially aid in selecting suitable candidates for minimally invasive surgery in clinical practice.
Topics: Female; Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Conization; Retrospective Studies; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Disease-Free Survival; Hysterectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 38016630
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.11.019 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Aug 2022This systematic review aims at describing the prevalence of urinary and sexual symptoms among women who underwent a hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims at describing the prevalence of urinary and sexual symptoms among women who underwent a hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
METHODS
A systematic search in six electronic databases was performed, in September 2019, by two researchers. The text search was limited to the investigation of prevalence or occurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and sexual dysfunctions in women who underwent a hysterectomy for cervical cancer. For search strategies, specific combinations of terms were used.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies, published between 2010 and 2018, were included in the sample. The average age of the participants ranged from 40 to 56 years, and the dysfunctions predominantly investigated in the articles were urinary symptoms ( = 8). The rates of urinary incontinence due to radical abdominal hysterectomy ranged from 7 to 31%. The same dysfunction related to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy varied from 25 to 35% and to laparoscopic nerve sparing radical hysterectomy varied from 25 to 47%. Nocturia ranged from 13%, before treatment, to 30%, after radical hysterectomy. The prevalence rates of dyspareunia related to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic nerve sparing radical hysterectomy ranged from 5 to 16% and 7 to 19% respectively. The difficulty in having orgasm was related to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (10 to 14%) and laparoscopic nerve sparing radical hysterectomy (9 to 19%).
CONCLUSION
Urinary and sexual dysfunctions after radical hysterectomy to treat cervical cancer are frequent events. The main reported disorders were urinary incontinence and dyspareunia.
Topics: Adult; Dyspareunia; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Middle Aged; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Urinary Incontinence; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 36075225
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748972 -
Gynecologic Oncology Apr 2022Several techniques can be proposed as fertility sparing surgery in young patients treated for cervical cancer but uncertaincies remain concerning their outcomes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several techniques can be proposed as fertility sparing surgery in young patients treated for cervical cancer but uncertaincies remain concerning their outcomes. Analysis of oncological issues is then the first aim of this review in order to evaluate the best strategy.
RESULTS
Data were identified from searches of MEDLINE, Current Contents, PubMed and from references in relevant articles from January 1987 to 15th of September 2021. We carry out an updated systematic review involving 5862 patients initially selected for fertility-sparing surgery in 275 series.
FINDINGS
In patients having a stage IB1 disease, recurrence rate/RR in patients undergoing simple conisation/trachelectomy, radical trachelectomy/RT by laparoscopico-vaginal approach, laparotomic or laparoscopic approaches are respectively: 4.1%, 4.7%, 2.4% and 5.2%. In patients having a stage IB2 disease, RR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or RT by laparotomy are respectively 13.2% and 4.8% (p = .0035). After neoadjuvant treatment a simple cone/trachelectomy was carried out in 91 (30%) patients and a radical one in 210 (70%) cases. But the lowest pregnancy rate is observed in patients undergoing RT by laparotomy (36%).
CONCLUSIONS
The choice between these treatments should be based above all, on objective oncological data that strike a balance for each procedure between the best chances for cure and the fertility results. In patients having a stage IB1 disease, oncological results are quite similar according to the procedure used. In patients having a stage IB2 disease, RT by open approach has the lowest RR. Anyway the lowest pregnancy rate is observed in patients undergoing RT by laparotomy.
Topics: Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Pregnancy; Trachelectomy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35241291
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.023 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Jan 2020This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).
DATA SOURCES
We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 2019. Related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also checked.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Two researchers independently performed data extraction. We selected comparative studies that reported perioperative urologic complications.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Twenty-three eligible clinical trials were included in this analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any urologic complication after RRH compared with LRH was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.28; p = .585). The odds ratios for intraoperative and postoperative complications after RRH versus LRH were .86 (95% CI, .48-1.55; p = .637) and .94 (95% CI, .64-1.38; p = .767), respectively. In a secondary analysis study quality, study location, and the publication year were not associated with intraoperative or postoperative urologic complications.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that RRH is not superior to LRH in terms of perioperative urologic complications.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Urologic Diseases
PubMed: 31315060
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.07.008 -
Oncology Letters Feb 2021The benefit of adjuvant hysterectomy after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for locally-advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is controversial. The purpose of...
The benefit of adjuvant hysterectomy after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for locally-advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is controversial. The purpose of the present study was to systematically search the literature and perform a meta-analysis to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients subjected to CCRT with hysterectomy and those who underwent CCRT alone. The PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Google scholar databases were searched. A meta-analysis to determine hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with meta-regression was performed for the following moderators: Disease stage, histology and proportion of radical hysterectomy. Data from 14 studies were included. The results indicated that patients who received CCRT with hysterectomy had significantly better OS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; I=19%; P=0.007) and DFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.93; I=27%; P=0.01) than those treated with CCRT alone. However, in a subgroup analysis by study type, the results were significant only for retrospective studies but not for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, only 2 RCTs were included with small sample size, heterogeneity and low overall quality. Subgroup analyses based on the use of brachytherapy in the CCRT with hysterectomy group demonstrated no difference in OS and DFS between the two groups. Regarding the absolute numbers of death and recurrence events, no significant difference in mortality (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.33; I=0%; P=0.64) was determined between the two groups, but a significantly reduced incidence of recurrence was observed in the CCRT with hysterectomy group (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; I=29%; P=0.0002). The meta-regression results point to a significant influence of the proportion of stage II patients on OS. Despite the overall analysis indicating improved OS and DFS with the use of adjuvant hysterectomy after CCRT, subgroup analysis based on similar treatment protocols failed to demonstrate any significant benefit of hysterectomy in LACC. However, the results indicated that the recurrence rate may be higher in patients undergoing CCRT without hysterectomy. The limited quality of the studies included and selection bias from retrospective studies restrict the possibility to draw strong conclusions.
PubMed: 33552278
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2020.12421 -
International Journal of Gynecological... Jul 2021To investigate the oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size 2 cm who underwent open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size 2 cm who underwent open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.
METHODS
The Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web-of-Science databases were queried from inception to January 2021 (PROSPERO CRD 42020207971). Observational studies reporting progression-free survival and/or overall survival for patients who had open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size 2 cm were selected. Level of statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I statistic. A random-effects model was used to compare progression and overall survival between the two groups and HR with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the Der Simonian and Laird approach. Risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included encompassing 4935 patients. Of these, 2394 (48.5%) patients had minimally invasive and 2541 (51.5%) patients had open radical hysterectomy; respectively. Patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy had worse progression-free survival than those who had open surgery (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20, 2.36, I 26%). Based on five studies, patients who had minimally invasive (n=1808) hysterectomy had a trend towards worse overall survival than those who had open surgery (n=1853) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68, I 15%).
CONCLUSION
Based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies that control for confounders, for patients with cervical cancer and tumor size 2 cm, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival than laparotomy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Staging; Progression-Free Survival; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 34016701
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002505