Survival outcomes between minimal invasive surgery and open surgery for consecutive patients with early stage cervical cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 154 ◽  
pp. 261-262
Author(s):  
L.Y. Li ◽  
S.W. Kim ◽  
J.Y. Lee ◽  
E.J. Nam ◽  
S. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Minimal Invasive Surgery ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer

scholarly journals The Surgeon’s Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Yang ◽  
Yue Huang ◽  
Zhengyu Li
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Surgery Group ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer

PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) by surgeons in different phases and evaluate whether the proficiency of surgeons affects the survival outcomes.Materials and MethodsA total of 851 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy between January 2008 and June 2018 (every year from January to June) at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into four phases according to their sequence (phase one, 1-10 cases; phase two: 11-20 cases; phase three: 21-30 cases; phase four: > 30 cases). Demographics and clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed.ResultsThere were no statistical differences between the open surgery and MIS groups regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The OS and DFS of patients in the MIS group in phase one were significantly lower than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group after adjustment (OS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.896; 95%CI, 1.303-6.435; DFS, P = 0.009; HR, 2.712; 95%CI, 1.289-5.706). Survival outcomes were not statistically significant when comparing different surgeons.ConclusionThe phase one cases of MIS had lower OS and DFS than those in later phases and those in the open surgery group. Thus, we suggest that the proficiency of surgeons is associated with survival outcomes of MIS. Favorable outcomes can be obtained after a certain number of MIS cases.

scholarly journals Robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic literature review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Gun Oh Chong
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Robotic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Robotic technology has recently come into widespread use to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Most comparative studies showed that blood loss and hospital stays for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, including robotic procedures, were superior compared to open surgery. Moreover, the survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy were not inferior to open radical hysterectomy. Unexpectedly, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, a randomized, open-label, noninferiority study that compared minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with open radical hysterectomy, revealed that minimally invasive surgery was associated with a higher risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery. Strict guidelines for robotic radical hysterectomy for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer should be established in accordance with objective Korean data. In addition, it is recommended that further studies should be performed on how to avoid the use of uterine manipulators and the dissemination of cancer cells by ensuring a more effective vaginal closure using a standardized approach.

scholarly journals 154 Disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer: comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery in a tertiary centre

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Veiga-Fernández ◽  
María López-Altuna ◽  
Ignacio Romero-Martínez ◽  
Elsa Mendizábal Vicente ◽  
Patricia Rincon Olbes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Tertiary Centre ◽  
Early Stage Cervical Cancer ◽  
Disease Free

scholarly journals 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 ◽  
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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document