Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer

被引:114
|
作者
Kim, Se Ik [1 ]
Cho, Jae Hyun [1 ]
Seol, Aeran [1 ]
Kim, Young Im [1 ]
Lee, Maria [1 ]
Kim, Hee Seung [1 ]
Chung, Hyun Hoon [1 ]
Kim, Jae-Weon [1 ]
Park, Noh Hyun [1 ]
Song, Yong-Sang [1 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
关键词
Cervical cancer; Radical hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; Survival outcome; IB1; STATISTICS; RECURRENCE; CRITERIA; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.008
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective. To compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy (RH) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer (CC). Methods. We retrospectively identified stage IB1-IIA2 CC patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open Type C RH between 2000 and 2018. Patients' clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes were compared according to the surgical approach. For a more robust statistical analysis, we narrowed the study population down to the patients with stage IB1 who underwent pre-operative MRI. Results. In total, 435 and 158 patients were assigned to open surgery and MIS groups, respectively. MIS group had significantly less parametrial invasion (6.3% vs. 15.4%; P = 0.004). Despite similar proportions of patients received adjuvant treatment, concurrent chemoradiation therapy was performed less frequently in MIS group. After a median follow up of 114.8 months, the groups showed similar overall survival; however, MIS group displayed poorer progression-free survival (PFS; 5-year rate, 78.5% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses identified MIS as an independent poor prognostic factor for PFS (adjusted HR, 2.883; 95% CI, 1.711-4.859; P < 0.001). Consistent results were observed among 349 patients with stage 181: MIS was associated with higher recurrence rates (adjusted HR, 2.276; 95% CI, 1.039-4.986; P = 0.040). However, MIS did not influence PFS of stage IBI patients with cervical mass size <= 2 cm on pre-operative MRI (adjusted HR, 1.146; 95% CI, 0.278-4.724; P = 0.850). Conclusions. Overall, MIS RH was associated with higher recurrence rates than open RH in patients with earlystage CC. However, MIS was not a poor prognostic factor among those with stage IB1 and cervical mass size <= 2 cm on pre-operative MRI. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 12
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer
    Chen, Chunlin
    Guo, Jianxin
    Liu, Ping
    Li, Zhiqiang
    Jiang, Haixia
    Zhu, Qianyong
    Bin, Xiaonong
    Lang, Jinghe
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2021, 47 (04) : 1516 - 1526
  • [2] Comparison of Survival Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
    Chen, I-Ning
    Wang, I-Te
    Mu, Hsueh-Yu
    Qiu, J-Timothy
    Liu, Wei-Min
    Chang, Ching-Wen
    Chiu, Yen-Hsieh
    [J]. CANCERS, 2022, 14 (09)
  • [3] Surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and radical abdominal hysterectomy for IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer
    Quan, Chenlian
    Liang, Shanhui
    Feng, Zheng
    Zhu, Jun
    Zhang, Meiqin
    Huang, Yan
    [J]. ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 46 (01) : 105 - 110
  • [4] Adjuvant hysterectomy following primary chemoradiation for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer: A comparison of complications for open versus minimally invasive surgery
    Miller, H.
    Hom, M. S.
    Castaneda, A.
    Matsuo, K.
    Roman, L. D.
    Brunette, L. L.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2019, 154 : 202 - 202
  • [5] Adjuvant hysterectomy following primary chemoradiation for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer: a retrospective comparison of complications for open versus minimally invasive surgery
    Heather Miller
    Koji Matsuo
    Lynda D. Roman
    Annie A. Yessaian
    Huyen Q. Pham
    Marianne Hom
    Antonio Castaneda
    Anthony Pham
    Omar Ragab
    Laila Muderspach
    Marcia Ciccone
    Laurie L. Brunette
    [J]. Radiation Oncology, 16
  • [6] Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomic surgery as a primary treatment for patients with stage IA1-IIA2 cervical cancer
    Morris, Robert T.
    Barber, Emma L.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2019, 154 : 10 - 11
  • [7] Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer Survival outcomes
    Yang, Eun Jung
    Kim, Nae Ry
    Lee, A. Jin
    Shim, Seung-Hyuk
    Lee, Sun Joo
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2022, 101 (08) : E28911
  • [8] Comparison of survival outcomes between radical hysterectomy and definitive radiochemotherapy in stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer
    Wu, San-Gang
    Zhang, Wen-Wen
    He, Zhen-Yu
    Sun, Jia-Yuan
    Wang, Yan
    Zhou, Juan
    [J]. CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2017, 9 : 813 - 819
  • [10] Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy
    Corrado, Giacomo
    Anchora, Luigi Pedone
    Bruni, Simone
    Sperduti, Isabella
    Certelli, Camilla
    Chiofalo, Benito
    Giannini, Andrea
    D'Oria, Ottavia
    Bizzarri, Nicolo
    Legge, Francesco
    Cosentino, Francesco
    Turco, Luigi Carlo
    Vizza, Enrico
    Scambia, Giovanni
    Ferrandina, Gabriella
    [J]. EJSO, 2023, 49 (11):