-
Medicine Jan 2020To compare the clinical outcomes of radical hysterectomy (RH) with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in women with stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the clinical outcomes of radical hysterectomy (RH) with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in women with stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer.
METHODS
Based on articles published up to December 2017, a literature search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HRs), and toxicities with odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed.
RESULTS
In total, 7 studies comprising 687 patients were identified for this meta-analysis. RH showed a significant trend toward improved survival outcomes compared with those of CRT, regardless of OS (HR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.67, P < .001); or PFS (1.61, 95% CI 1.15-2.26, P = .005) for IB2-IIA cervical cancer. Subgroup analysis revealed that stage IB2 cervical cancer patients obtained better OS (HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.56, P < .001; heterogeneity: P = .32, I = 13%). However, a higher incidence of grade 3/4 genitourinary abnormalities was evident with RH (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.42-3.87, P = .021).
CONCLUSION
Our study suggested that RH had distinct advantages over CRT for carcinoma of the uterine cervix with FIGO stage IB2-IIA, especially for IB2 cervical cancer.
Topics: Carcinoma; Chemoradiotherapy; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 32000377
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018738 -
Molecular and Clinical Oncology Feb 2020The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for...
The aim of the present study was to compare the oncological outcome of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) and conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH) for early-stage cervical cancer using a meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 case-control and 11 comparative cohort studies comparing the morbidity, pelvic dysfunctions and oncological outcome between the two surgical methods. A total of 23 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies reported data of patients affected by cervical cancer; were written in English; included ≥20 patients; and reported data of patients with a comparison of clinical outcomes between NSRH and CRH. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by four independent reviewers. A total of 1,796 patients were included: 884 patients (49.2%) undergoing NSRH and 912 (50.8%) undergoing CRH. The meta-analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.3 software, which is designed for conducting Cochrane reviews. As regards perioperative parameters, NSRH was found to be associated with a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay in comparison with CRH. Patients undergoing NSRH experienced lower incidence of urinary, colorectal and sexual dysfunction compared with patients undergoing CRH. However, the resected parametrial width was favorable in patients with CRH, suggesting that NSRH was inferior to CRH in terms of radicality. The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the collected data to date demonstrated that the nerve-sparing approach guarantees minimized surgical-related pelvic dysfunction, with similar oncological outcomes as CRH. However, further RCTs should be conducted to confirm the superiority and safety of NSRH.
PubMed: 31929888
DOI: 10.3892/mco.2019.1959