Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Using the No-Look No-Touch Technique for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using the no-look no-touch technique (NLNT). We analyzed patients with early stage (IA2, IB1, and IIA1, FIGO2008) cervical cancer treated between December 2014 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). We compared the outcomes of the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and NLNT groups using a Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), according to propensity scores. We also evaluated NLNT’s non-inferiority to ARH using an evaluation of heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and our study. ARH and NLNT were performed in 118 and 113 patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After IPTW adjustment, the 3-year DFS rates (NLNT 92.4%; ARH 94.0%) and overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Furthermore, the 3-year DFS rates for patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm in the NLNT (85.0%) and ARH (90.3%) groups did not differ significantly. No significant heterogeneity was observed between the LACC trial and our study (I2 = 60.5%, p = 0.111), although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT provides a favorable prognosis for early stage cervical cancer.

Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background The effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH. Methods We searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/). Results Thirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD −1.27, 95% CI (−1.84 ~ −0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD −1.24, 95% CI (−1.62 ~ −0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (−0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD −0.10, 95% CI (−0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (−0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group. Conclusions LNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.

Survival after Laparoscopic Radical Surgery for Early-stage Cervical Cancer in 1316 Consecutive Cases from a National Laparoscopic Training Center in China

Background: A major concern about the Laparoscopy Approach to Cervical Cancer trial is the disparities in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy experience between the participating centers and the potential effects of the learning curve of minimally invasive surgery on the oncologic outcomes of patients. Thus, it is necessary to assess the survival of cervical cancer patients undergoing laparoscopy in a minimally invasive gynecology center.Methods: A consecutive series of patients undergoing first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer from May 2008 to December 2017 at a national laparoscopic training center were retrospectively analyzed. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups.Results: In total, 1316 women with FIGO (2009) stage IA-IIB cervical cancer received LRH. Among them, 1114 (84.7%) were followed-up for 3 months or longer; the median follow-up period was 48 months (range, 3-144 months). In patients with stage IA, IB1 (≤ 2 cm), IB1 (> 2 cm), IB2, IIA1 and IIA2-IIB tumors, the 4-year PFS rates were 98.6%, 94.5%, 87.4%, 65.6%, 80.0% and 67.4%, respectively, and the 4-year OS rates were 98.6%, 96.8%, 91.1%, 77.4%, 85.6% and 76.2%, respectively. The 4-year PFS and OS were as high as 96.2% and 97.5%, respectively, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of 2 cm or smaller in diameter. A stable high 4-year OS and PFS was achieved after completing 100 LRHs. In patients operated on by the same surgeon, an improvement in survival was observed after 40 LRHs. Conclusion: Favorable oncologic outcomes can be achieved in patients with IA-IB1 cervical cancer after LRH in a center with a high surgery volume.

The Effect of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume on Oncology Outcomes in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Purpose: To examine the association between surgical volume and surgical and oncological outcomes of women with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the oncological outcomes of 1,137 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer receiving LRH from 2004 to 2016. The surgical volume for each surgeon was defined as low [fewer than 50 surgeries, n = 392(34.5%)], mid [51-100 surgeries, n = 315(27.7%)], and high [100 surgeries or more, n = 430(37.8%)]. Surgical volume-specific survival was examined with Kaplan–Meier analysis, multivariable analysis, and propensity score matching.Results: The operative times of the high-volume group (227.35 ± 7.796 min) were significantly shorter than that of the low- (272.77 ± 4.887 min, p &lt; 0.001) and mid-volume (255.86 ± 4.981 min, p &lt; 0.001) groups. Blood loss in the high-volume group (169.42 ± 8.714 ml) was significantly less than that in the low-volume group (219.24 ± 11.299 ml, p = 0.003). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the low-volume, mid-volume, and high-volume groups were similar (DFS: 91.9, 86.7, and 89.2%, p = 0.102; OS: 96.4, 93.5, and 94.2%, p = 0.192). Multivariable analysis revealed surgical volume was not an independent risk factor for OS or DFS. The rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was similar among the three groups (p = 0.210).Conclusions: Surgical volume of LRH may not be a prognostic factor for patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Surgery at high-volume surgeon is associated with decreased operative time and blood loss.

Application of Modified Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in The Treatment of Early Cervical Cancer

Background: To investigate the safety and efficacy of modified laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing relevant indices of different surgical procedures in patients with early stage cervical cancer.Methods: Patients with 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) clinical stages IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy in the Gynecological Department of our hospital from October 2015 to June 2018 were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedure: the open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group (n=336) and MLRH group (n=302). We retrospectively analyzed and compared the clinical characteristics, surgical indices, and survival prognosis between the groups.Results: Compared to the ORH group, the MLRH group exhibited a longer operative time, normal bladder function recovery time, less intraoperative blood loss volume, and more harvested pelvic lymph nodes (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, the 2.5-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2.5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate, and recurrence rate between the groups (P>0.05), but the recurrence pattern was significantly different between the groups (P<0.05). Stratified analysis revealed that OS time was shorter in the ORH group than in the MLRH group in patients with stage IB1 and middle invasion (P<0.05). Pathological type was an independent factor for DFS and OS in early stage cervical cancer.Conclusion: MLRH incorporates a series of measures to prevent tumor spillage. It is a feasible and effective surgical procedure for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.Trial registration: Present research is a retrospective study. The study had retrospectively registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) and the registered number is ChiCTR1900026306.

Application of Novel Tumor-free Techniques in Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Cervical Cancer.

Objective: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been historically considered oncologically equivalent to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early cervical cancer. However, it was recently reported to be significantly inferior in long-term outcomes of the minimally invasive approach to open approach. The underlying causes of this finding arouse great concern and remain controversial. Here we would like to share some initial experience of tumor-free techniques in laparoscopic procedures for early cervical cancer, including uterine manipulator-free manipulation and enclosed colpotomy. Methods: Between December 2019 and May 2020, we performed manipulator-free laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in 26 cases with early cervical cancer. The modified tumor-free techniques, including uterine manipulator-free manipulation and enclosed colpotomy, was described in detail with illustrations.Results: The procedures went well in all patients. In our initial experience, these modifications do not increase the difficulty of surgical techniques, and can be well performed by the experienced surgeons.Conclusions: These techniques are safe and feasible, and the effects on oncological outcomes deserve follow-up and further clinical studies.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis

IntroductionRecent evidence has shown adverse oncological outcomes when minimally invasive surgery is used in early-stage cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to compare disease-free survival in patients that had undergone radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, either by laparoscopy or laparotomy.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion, IA2, and IB1 (FIGO 2009 classification), between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2017, at seven cancer centers from six countries. We included squamous, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies. We used an inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity score to construct a weighted cohort of women, including predictor variables selected a priori with the possibility of confounding the relationship between the surgical approach and survival. We estimated the HR for all-cause mortality after radical hysterectomy with weighted Cox proportional hazard models.ResultsA total of 1379 patients were included in the final analysis, with 681 (49.4%) operated by laparoscopy and 698 (50.6%) by laparotomy. There were no differences regarding the surgical approach in the rates of positive vaginal margins, deep stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion. Median follow-up was 52.1 months (range, 0.8–201.2) in the laparoscopic group and 52.6 months (range, 0.4–166.6) in the laparotomy group. Women who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had a lower rate of disease-free survival compared with the laparotomy group (4-year rate, 88.7% vs 93.0%; HR for recurrence or death from cervical cancer 1.64; 95% CI 1.09–2.46; P=0.02). In sensitivity analyzes, after adjustment for adjuvant treatment, radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy was associated with increased hazards of recurrence or death from cervical cancer (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.57; P=0.01) and death for any cause (HR 2.14; 95% CI 1.05–4.37; P=0.03).ConclusionIn this retrospective multicenter study, laparoscopy was associated with worse disease-free survival, compared to laparotomy.