Surgical, pathologic and survival outcomes of patients undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer

Objectives: (a) To understand the profile of cervical cancer patients attending our hospital from January 2011 till January 2015. (b) To audit the type of care given to the patients with respect to their stage at presentation. (c) To compare the outcomes of open v/s robotic radical hysterectomy done for cervical cancer. Methods: We prospectively analyzed all cases of cervical cancer from January 2011 to January 2015 presenting at our institute. Data was retrieved from patient’s records and institute’s tumor registry. We compared all patients undergoing open v/s robotic RH. All the data were analysed using SPSS version 21. Results: A total of 562 patients were treated for cervical cancer during the time period between 2011-2015. Of these there were 316 (56%) cases taken up for surgery-212 robotic RH, 104 open radical hysterectomy and rest 246 (44%) patients received definitive CCRT. Most common age group was 40-54 yrs. IB1 stage was most common presenting stage. SCC was most common histology (75%). Immediate post op complication and oncological safety in terms of local recurrence was same in both groups. However length of stay and post operative blood requirement was significantly lower in robotic RH group. 45% of all patients who underwent surgery did not require adjuvant therapy in post op period while 35% patient required post op RT and 20% CCRT. 2.2% patient had local recurrence and most of the patients were in stage IIA1 at presentation. Conclusion: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological cancer in our hospital registry. Mostly women were in the age group of 40-54 years. Most common stage at presentation was 1B and the histology being SCC. Not many differences seen in open v/s robotic techniques of radical hysterectomy except for shorter hospital stay and less need of blood transfusion in the robotic group. Local recurrence rates are comparable in both open and robotic groups.

Download Full-text

Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: A single institution review of the first 3years of practice

Gynecologic Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.07.041 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 123 (2) ◽

pp. 430

Author(s):

M. Tenney ◽

E. Nugent ◽

J. Kimmer ◽

C. Mathews ◽

D.S. McMeekin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Cancer ◽

Radical Hysterectomy ◽

Invasive Cervical Cancer ◽

Single Institution

Download Full-text

Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038020 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. e038020

Author(s):

Xiaopei Chao ◽

Ming Wu ◽

Shuiqing Ma ◽

Xianjie Tan ◽

Sen Zhong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Cancer ◽

Radical Hysterectomy ◽

Early Stage ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Learning Curves ◽

Surgical Approaches ◽

Survival Outcomes ◽

Link Type ◽

Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽

Early Stage Cervical Cancer

IntroductionRecent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the potential reasons are unclear.Methods and analysisEach expert from 28 study centres participating in a previously reported randomised controlled trial (NCT03739944) will provide successive eligible records of at least 100 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. Inclusion criteria consist of a definite pathological evaluation of stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 and IB1 according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system and a histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma. The primary endpoint is 5-year disease-free survival between the MIRH and ARH groups. The secondary endpoints include the MIRH learning curves of participating surgeons, 5-year overall survival between the MIRH and ARH groups, survival outcomes according to surgical chronology, surgical outcomes and sites of recurrence and potential risk factors that affect survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis in patients with tumour diameter less than 2 cm will follow the similar flow diagram.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (registration no. JS-1711), and is also filed on record by all other 27 centres. The results will be disseminated through community events and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03738969

Download Full-text