-
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Apr 2024Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Minimally invasive surgery on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer is debatable. Traditional approaches of colpotomy are considered responsible for an inferior oncological outcome. Evidence on whether protective colpotomy could optimize minimally invasive technique and improve prognoses of women with early-stage cervical cancer remains limited. We produced a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare oncological outcomes of the patients treated by minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to those treated by open surgery according to existing literature. We explored PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies published in English, (2) studies comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy to abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, and (3) studies comparing survival outcomes. Two reviewers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. A total of 8 retrospective cohort studies with 2020 women were included in the study, 821 of whom were in the minimally invasive surgery group, and 1199 of whom were in the open surgery group. The recurrence-free survival and overall survival in the minimally invasive surgery group were both similar to that in the open surgery group (pooled hazard ratio, 0.88 and 0.78, respectively; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38 and 0.42-1.44, respectively). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with protective colpotomy on treatment of early-stage cervical cancer had similar recurrence-free survival and overall survival compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Protective colpotomy could be a guaranteed approach to modifying minimally invasive technique.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Colpotomy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Hysterectomy; Proportional Hazards Models; Laparoscopy; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 38457858
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108240 -
Medicine Mar 2024The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of 3 different radical hysterectomy (RH) types, namely total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), total...
Comparison of survival outcome of open, total laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy for stage IB2 cervical cancer patients: A multicenter retrospective study.
The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes of 3 different radical hysterectomy (RH) types, namely total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH), and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer. We retrospectively identified a cohort of patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer between 2010 and 2017. Patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer were included and were classified into TARH, TLRH, and LARVH treatment groups. Survival outcomes were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate the independent association of RH technique with outcome. 194 patients were included in this study: 79 patients in the TARH group, 55 in the TLRH group, and 60 in the LARVH group. No significant differences were found in clinicopathological characteristics between the 3 RH groups. On comparing survival outcomes with TARH, both TLRH and LARVH showed no significant difference in terms of 5-year overall survival (TARH vs TLRH, P = .121 and TARH vs LARVH, P = .436). Conversely, compared to the TARH group, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly worse in the TLRH group (P = .034) but not in the LARVH group (P = .288). Multivariate analysis showed that TLRH surgical approach (hazard ratio, 3.232; 95% confidence interval, 1.238-8.438; P = .017) was an independent prognostic factor for PFS in patients with IB2 cervical cancer. Our study suggests that in patients with FIGO stage IB2 cervical cancer, among the minimally invasive RH approaches, TLRH and LARVH, only TLRH approach was associated with worse PFS when compared with the TARH approach.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Staging; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Disease-Free Survival
PubMed: 38457577
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037426 -
Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology May 2024
Topics: Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Female; Hysterectomy; Equivalence Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38448569
DOI: 10.1038/s41571-024-00879-x -
International Journal of Gynecological... Mar 2024We sought to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of simple hysterectomy in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer (tumors ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion).
OBJECTIVE
We sought to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of simple hysterectomy in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer (tumors ≤2 cm with limited stromal invasion).
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023433840) following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), EmMBASEbase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until June 2023. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies with two arms of comparison (simple hysterectomy with lymph node assessment vs radical hysterectomy with lymph node assessment) in patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer were considered.
RESULTS
The search identified 1270 articles; eighteen studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and four met the selection criteria. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, and the other was a retrospective cohort study. In total, 981 patients were included. There were 485 (49.4%) and 496 (50.6%) patients in the simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy groups, respectively. Simple hysterectomy with lymph node assessment was not associated with a higher risk of death at 5 years (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.31 to 3.10; I=0%, two randomized controlled trials, 141 patients, for an absolute risk reduction of zero percentage points [95% CI -9.0 to 9.0]), pelvic recurrence at 3 years (97.5% and 97.8% for simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy, respectively, p=0.79), and overall recurrence at 3 years (95 %% and 100% for simple hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy, respectively, p=0.30).
CONCLUSION
Simple hysterectomy with lymph node evaluation for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer is not associated with a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes and has a better morbidity profile.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Lymph Nodes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 38438182
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004593 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Mar 2024The purpose was to investigate the safety and advantages of different surgical approaches applied to overweight or obese cervical cancer patients by comparing their...
The purpose was to investigate the safety and advantages of different surgical approaches applied to overweight or obese cervical cancer patients by comparing their surgical and oncological outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study. 382 patients with a body mass index of at least 24.0 kg/m and stage IB-IIA (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO 2009) cervical cancer were enrolled, and then were divided into three groups: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) group, and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) group according to the surgical approach. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyze data. There were 51 patients in ORH group, 225 patients in LRH group and 106 patients in RRH group. In the comparison of surgical outcomes, compared to LRH and ORH, RRH had the shortest operating time, the least estimated blood loss, the shortest postoperative hospital stay, and the shortest recovery time for bowel function (P < 0.05). In the comparison of postoperative complications, ORH has the highest rate of postoperative infection and wound complication compared to LRH and RRH (P < 0.05), and RRH has the highest proportion of urinary retention. After a median follow-up time of 61 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate, (P = 0.262, P = 0.453). In patients with overweight or obese cervical cancer, the long-term outcomes of the three surgical approaches were comparable, with RRH showing significant advantages over ORH and LRH in terms of surgical outcomes.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Overweight; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Obesity; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38436785
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01863-4 -
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban =... Nov 2023Laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer has the advantages of little blood loss and rapid recovery, but its therapeutic effect is still controversial. This study aims...
OBJECTIVES
Laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer has the advantages of little blood loss and rapid recovery, but its therapeutic effect is still controversial. This study aims to analyze the surgical procedure and clinical efficacy of tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator for early-stage cervical cancer, and to explore the indications of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer.
METHODS
This study was a retrospective study. The data of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer admitted to Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital from July 2019 to December 2021 were collected. According to 2018 the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical staging, all patients were in IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 stage. Among them, 45 patients underwent tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator (laparoscopy group) and 16 patients underwent open surgery (open surgery group). Patients were followed up for 12-41 months. The differences between the 2 groups in terms of operative time, bleeding volume, extent of surgical resection, surgical complications, and prognosis were compared and analyzed.
RESULTS
Compared to the open surgery group, the laparoscopy group had significantly shorter operation time and less intraoperative blood loss (both <0.001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the length of excised uterosacral ligaments, cardinal ligaments, vagina, and the number of excised lymph nodes (all >0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the groups (>0.05). No death or recurrence occurred in the 2 groups during the follow-up period. The overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were both 100%.
CONCLUSIONS
For early-stage cervical cancer with a diameter ≤2 cm, tumor-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy without a uterine manipulator is safe and feasible, and the short-term outcomes is no less than that of open surgery.
Topics: Child; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Vagina; Hysterectomy
PubMed: 38432859
DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2023.230334 -
BMC Women's Health Mar 2024Concurrent chemoradiation is the standard treatment for advanced cervical cancer. However some patients still have a poor prognosis, and currently, there is no effective... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Concurrent chemoradiation is the standard treatment for advanced cervical cancer. However some patients still have a poor prognosis, and currently, there is no effective treatment for recurrence. In recent years, 125I seed implantation therapy has emerged as a treatment for advanced malignant tumors including surgically unresectable tumors, residual tumors after surgical resection, and metastatic tumors. However, the use of 125I seeds implantation in primary advanced cervical cancer has not been reported. In this study, we present a case of stage IIIB cervical cancer in a patient who had poor response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Subsequently, a radical hysterectomy was performed, and 125I radioactive seeds were successfully implanted during the surgery. This effectively controlled the lesions that were resistant to radiotherapy and had the potential to improve the prognosis.
CASE PRESENTATION
A 56-year-old woman was diagnosed with stage IIIB (FIGO 2009) IIIC1r (FIGO 2018) squamous carcinoma of the cervix. After receiving 4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 rounds of radiotherapy, she underwent a radical hysterectomy. The localized cervical lesions were reduced, but there was no reduction in the size of the enlarged pelvic lymph nodes. Therefore, 125I seed implantation was performed under direct surgical vision for the right paracervical lesion and the enlarged pelvic lymph nodes on the right side. During the 18-month follow-up period, the enlarged lymph nodes subsided without any signs of recurrence or metastasis.
CONCLUSION
Intraoperative implantation of 125I seeds in lesions that are difficult to control with radiotherapy or in sites at high risk of recurrence is a feasible and effective treatment option for patients with advanced squamous cervical cancer, and it may contribute to improved survival.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Iodine Radioisotopes; Combined Modality Therapy; Retrospective Studies; Prognosis; Hysterectomy; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 38431586
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-02997-1 -
Gynecologic Oncology Jun 2024Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GEA), a rare subtype of cervical cancer, has garnered increasing attention recently for its distinctive histopathological... (Review)
Review
Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma (GEA), a rare subtype of cervical cancer, has garnered increasing attention recently for its distinctive histopathological features, unique classification, genetic characteristics, and variable clinical outcomes compared to squamous cell and adenocarcinoma subtypes. Historically, GEA has evolved from a poorly understood entity to a distinct subtype of cervical adenocarcinoma, only recently recognized in the 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Accordingly, characteristic morphological features define GEA, shedding light on the diagnostic challenges and potential misclassification that can occur in clinical practice. Genetic alterations, including KRAS, ARID1A, and PIK3CA mutations, play a pivotal role in the development and progression of GEA. This article reviews a case of GEA and aims to provide a contemporary overview of the genetic mutations and molecular pathways implicated in GEA pathogenesis, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and the prospects of precision medicine in its management. Patients with GEA have variable clinical outcomes, with some exhibiting aggressive behavior while others follow a more indolent course. This review examines the factors contributing to this heterogeneity, including stage at diagnosis, histological grade, and genetic alterations, and their implications for patient prognoses. Treatment strategies for GEA remain a topic of debate and research. Here, we summarize the current therapeutic options, including surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, while also exploring emerging approaches, such as targeted therapies and immunotherapy. This article provides a comprehensive overview of GEA, synthesizing current knowledge from historical perspectives to contemporary insights, focusing on its classification, genetics, outcomes, and therapeutic strategies.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adenocarcinoma; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 38428332
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.02.024 -
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Feb 2024This study compared the outcomes of laparotomic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MISRH) in patients with early-stage cervical...
OBJECTIVE
This study compared the outcomes of laparotomic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MISRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
METHODS
The clinical data of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent LRH or MISRH (laparoscopic/robotic) at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, from 2002 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical safety (operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of postoperative stay, and perioperative complications), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence pattern were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a 3:1 ratio was performed to balance prognostic variables.
RESULTS
Of the 760 patients (entire cohort), 614 underwent LRH and 146 underwent MISRH. After PSM, 394 and 140 patients were included in the LRH and MISRH groups, respectively. The 5-year OS rate was significantly lower in the MISRH group than in the LRH group (85.6% vs. 93.2%, p=0.043), and the 5-year DFS rate (p=0.21) did not differ significantly. After PSM, the 5-year OS rates did not differ significantly between the MISRH and LRH groups (87.1% vs. 92.1%, p=0.393). The MISRH group had a significantly shorter operation time (p<0.001), lower intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (p<0.001), and shorter postoperative stay (p<0.001) but a significantly higher rate of intraoperative bladder injury (p<0.001) than the LRH group.
CONCLUSION
After PSM, MISRH is associated with nonsignificantly lower OS but a significantly higher risk of intraoperative urological complications than LRH.
PubMed: 38425140
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e60 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia May 2024Robotic technique of surgery allows surgeons to perform complex procedures in difficult-to-access areas of the abdominal/pelvic cavity (eg, radical prostatectomy and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Evaluation of Quality of Recovery With Quality of Recovery-15 Score After Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System-Guided Propofol Versus Desflurane General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transabdominal Robotic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.
BACKGROUND
Robotic technique of surgery allows surgeons to perform complex procedures in difficult-to-access areas of the abdominal/pelvic cavity (eg, radical prostatectomy and radical hysterectomy) with improved access and precision approach. At the same time, automated techniques efficiently deliver propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with lower anesthetic consumption. As both above are likely to bring benefit to the patients, it is imperative to explore their effect on postanesthesia recovery. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) is a comprehensive patient-reported measure of the quality of postanesthesia recovery and assesses compendious patients' experiences (physical and mental well-being). This randomized study assessed the effect of automated propofol TIVA versus inhaled desflurane anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery using the QoR-15 questionnaire in patients undergoing elective robotic surgery.
METHODS
One hundred twenty patients undergoing robotic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were randomly allocated to receive propofol TIVA administered by closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) (CLADS group) or desflurane GA (desflurane group). Postoperative QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 (POD-1) and postoperative day 2 (POD-2) (primary outcome variables), individual QoR-15 item scores (15 nos.), intraoperative hemodynamics (heart rate, mean blood pressure), anesthesia depth consistency, anesthesia delivery system performance, early recovery from anesthesia (time-to-eye-opening, and time to tracheal extubation), and postoperative adverse events (sedation, postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], pain, intraoperative awareness recall) (secondary outcome variables) were analyzed.
RESULTS
On POD-1, the CLADS group scored significantly higher than the desflurane group in terms of "overall" QoR-15 score (QoR-15 score: 114.5 ± 13 vs 102.1 ± 20.4; P = .001) and 3 individual QoR-15 "items" scores ("feeling rested" 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 6.4 ± 2.2, P = .007; "good sleep" 7.8 ± 1.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.7, P = .027; and "feeling comfortable and in control" 8.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.4, P = .006). On the POD-2, the CLADS group significantly outscored the desflurane group with respect to the "overall" QoR-15 score (126.0 ± 13.6 vs 116.3 ± 20.3; P = .011) and on "5" individual QoR-15 items ("feeling rested" 8.1 ± 1.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.0, P = .003; "able to return to work or usual home activities" 6.0 ± 2.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.6, P = .008; "feeling comfortable and in control" 8.6 ± 1.2 vs 7.7 ± 1.9, P = .004; "feeling of general well-being" 7.8 ± 1.6 vs 6.9 ± 2.0, P = .042; and "severe pain" 9.0 ± 1.9 vs 8.1 ± 2.5, P = .042).
CONCLUSIONS
Automated propofol TIVA administered by CLADS is superior to desflurane inhalation GA with respect to early postoperative recovery as comprehensively assessed on the QoR-15 scoring system. The effect of combined automated precision anesthesia and surgery (robotics) techniques on postoperative recovery may be explored further.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Desflurane; Pain; Propofol; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 38416594
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006849