دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.
المؤلفون: Baiocchi G; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil. glbaiocchi@yahoo.com.br., Ribeiro R; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Erasto Gaertner Hospital PPGTS/Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil., Dos Reis R; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil., Falcao DF; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Aristides Maltez Hospital, Salvador, Brazil., Lopes A; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Brasileiro de Controle do Cancer, Sao Paulo, Brazil., Costa RLR; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Brasileiro de Controle do Cancer, Sao Paulo, Brazil., Pinto GLS; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Brasileiro de Controle do Cancer, Sao Paulo, Brazil., Vieira M; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil., Kumagai LY; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil., Faloppa CC; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil., Mantoan H; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil., Badiglian-Filho L; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil., Tsunoda AT; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Erasto Gaertner Hospital PPGTS/Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil., Foiato TF; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Erasto Gaertner Hospital PPGTS/Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil., Andrade CEMC; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil., Palmeira LO; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Aristides Maltez Hospital, Salvador, Brazil., Gonçalves BT; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil., Zanvettor PH; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Aristides Maltez Hospital, Salvador, Brazil.
المصدر: Annals of surgical oncology [Ann Surg Oncol] 2022 Feb; Vol. 29 (2), pp. 1151-1160. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Sep 20.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article; Multicenter Study
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9420840 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1534-4681 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 10689265 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ann Surg Oncol Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 2005- : New York, NY : Springer
Original Publication: New York, NY : Raven Press, c1994-
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Laparoscopy* , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*/pathology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*/surgery, Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Neoplasm Staging ; Retrospective Studies
مستخلص: Purpose: To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer.
Methods: A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed.
Results: A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35).
Conclusions: Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.
(© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)
References: Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. 2018;00(00):1–31. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492.
Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Estimate/2020 – Cancer Incidence in Brazil. Published 2019. https://www.inca.gov.br/estimativa/estado-capital/brasil#main-content.
Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.031 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.03122735788)
Uppal S, Rebecca Liu J, Kevin Reynolds R, Rice LW, Spencer RJ. Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012–2015). Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):133–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.027 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.02730424895)
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395 . (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMoa180639530380365)
Rodriguez J, Rauh-Hain JA, Saenz J, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(4):504–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-002086 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-00208633504547)
Uppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K, et al. Recurrence rates in patients with cervical cancer treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective review study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1030–40. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.03012 . (PMID: 10.1200/JCO.19.0301232031867)
Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. SUCCOR study: An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(9):1269–77. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-00150632788262)
Li P, Chen L, Ni Y, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size < 2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17 . (PMID: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17349103948362814)
Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, et al. 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. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.008 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.00830642625)
Kwon BS, Roh HJ, Lee S, et al. Comparison of long-term survival of total abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: Korean multicenter, retrospective analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;(xxxx):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.035.
Jensen PT, Schnack TH, Frøding LP, et al. Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer–a population-based study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;128:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.020 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.02032109850)
Brandt B, Sioulas V, Basaran D, et al. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(3):591–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.038 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.038319189967056548)
Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. Survival after minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(7):1019–27. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694 . (PMID: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.169432525511)
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez NCJ. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010)
Köhler C, Hertel H, Herrmann J, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff–a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(5):845–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000388 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-00038831155516)
Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;116:169–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.016 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.01631200323)
Querleu D, Cibula D, Concin N, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) statement. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(1):15–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000775 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-00077531780565)
FIGO Gynecologic Oncology Committee. FIGO statement on minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(3):264. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13141 . (PMID: 10.1002/ijgo.13141)
Koh W-J, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(1):64-84. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001.
Chao X, Li L, Wu M, et al. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e029055. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029055 . (PMID: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029055313629666677993)
Falconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1072–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000558 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-00055831203203)
Desai RJ, Franklin JM. Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ. Published online October 23, 2019:l5657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5657.
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20210921 Date Completed: 20220105 Latest Revision: 20220105
رمز التحديث: 20221213
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10813-5
PMID: 34545531
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1534-4681
DOI:10.1245/s10434-021-10813-5