Laparoscopic regional radical hysterectomy showed promising clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer

Yang, Wei; Chen, Rong; Li, Caixia; Li, Li; Luo, Ning; Cheng, Zhongping

doi:10.4103/gmit.gmit_75_20

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Table 2, we present a list of papers from January 2019 to February 2022 describing more than 20 ARH versus MISRH cases that excluded stage IIB tumors. Up until 2018, almost all papers stated that MISRH had oncological noninferiority to ARH, but from 2019 onward, numerous papers have indicated inferiority for MIRH in terms of outcomes 5–8,17–19,21–42 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

Kobayashi

Kakuda

Ueda

et al. 2022

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer has been reported to be similar oncologic outcome compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in many retrospective studies. In Japan, LRH has been covered by insurance since April 2018. In 2018, the same year that LRH became covered by insurance, Ramirez et al. at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported the results of a large phase III laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial (LACC trial) on the prognosis of open versus laparoscopic/robot-assisted minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. The results showed that minimally invasive approaches were associated with a higher rate of recurrence and death. At this point, it is not clear what is wrong with LRH and why it has a poorer prognosis compared to ARH. In this report, after the LACC report, we would like to review the current status of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer and future directions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

Kobayashi

Kakuda

Ueda

et al. 2022

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Sun

Cai

et al. 2022

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center. Results Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102–1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013–1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume. Conclusion Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

show abstract

Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Chen

Wang

et al. 2022

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving women who received a radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, IB1, IB2, or IIA from 2008 to 2016. Clinicopathologic and perioperative outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical methodologies. Results: Oncologic survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Among the 105 cases identified, 58 (55.2%) and 47 (44.8%) women underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy, respectively. Over a median follow-up period of 62 months, women who underwent MIS and open radical hysterectomy had a 5-year overall survival rate of 87.9% and 89.4% (p = 0.845) and a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 82.5% and 86.7% (p = 0.624), respectively. Conclusions: For early-stage cervical cancer, patients who underwent MIS radical hysterectomy had survival outcomes that were comparable to those who underwent open surgery at our institute.

show abstract

Laparoscopic regional radical hysterectomy showed promising clinical outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

Overview of laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer in Japan: Updates after the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About