Image_1_Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Results in Higher Recurrence Rate Versus Open Abdominal Surgery for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients With Tumor Size Less Than 2 Centimeter: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.jpeg
To compare the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer lesion less than 2 cm.
MethodsPatients diagnosed FIGO (2009) stage IB1 (tumor diameter <2 cm) and underwent radical hysterectomy in our hospital between March 2008 and November 2018 were studied. A propensity-matched comparison (1:2) was conducted to minimize selection biases. Demographic and baseline oncologic characteristics were balanced between groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier model, along with univariable and multivariable regression analysis.
ResultsA total of 261 patients were enrolled in this study after propensity-matching, with 174 in the open group and 87 in the laparoscopic group. Disease relapsed in seven patients in laparoscopy group, and the recurrence rate was 8.0% (7/87). There were eight patients underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy experienced recurrence, and the recurrence rate was 4.6% (8/174). The multivariate analysis model revealed that laparoscopic operation was associated with higher risk of recurrence than abdominal radical hysterectomy (HR, 3.789; 95% CI, 1.143–12.559; p = 0.029). There were five patients or 2.9% (5/174) died in open surgery group and the corresponding percentage in laparoscopy group was 2.3% (2/87). No difference was found in OS between the two groups (HR, 1.823; 95% CI, 0.2673–12.44; log-rank p = 0.5398). All the recurrence occurred within two years after operation in the laparoscopy group, among which pelvic recurrence (85.7%) was dominant.
ConclusionTraditional laparotomy radical hysterectomy has a lower recurrence rate when compared with laparoscopic operation in those cervical cancer patients with a foci diameter less than 2 cm. However, no detrimental effect on survival was found in minimal invasive operation group. Further multi-center prospective trials are needed to confirm our results on a large scale.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.3322/caac.21492
- https://doi.org//10.6004/jnccn.2020.0027
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0002-9378(92)91351-a
- https://doi.org//10.1245/s10434-009-0342-7
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.058
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.suronc.2015.09.004
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.005
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.011
- https://doi.org//10.1097/MD.0000000000004787
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2004.00.3996
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4
- https://doi.org//10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.008
- https://doi.org//10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.06.023
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.016
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3
- https://doi.org//10.6004/jnccn.2013.0043
- https://doi.org//10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1804923
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejso.2006.03.043
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1477-7525-8-30
- https://doi.org//10.1245/s10434-019-08162-5
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.19.03012
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.02.009
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.06.023
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.19.02024
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.038
- https://doi.org//10.1111/aogs.13681
- https://doi.org//10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e71
- https://doi.org//10.1245/s10434-021-09695-4
CC BY 4.0