Derman Basaran1, Ladislav Dusek, Ondrej Majek, David Cibula. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey, dermanbasaran@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the oncologic outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) in cervical cancer and to compare them with those of standard conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH). METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for studies published to March 3, 2014 was performed using the search term "nerve sparing or radical hysterectomy and cervical cancer." The main outcome measure was the recurrence rate after NSRH. The hazard ratio for recurrence was used to compare NSRH and CRH. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies reported data on oncologic outcomes of NSRH. The recurrence rate after NSRH was reported to be 0 to 19.6 %. Of the 21 studies, 10 comparing outcomes between NSRH and CRH were assessed for their eligibility to be included in a meta-analysis. However, the scarcity and heterogeneity of effect estimates in these comparison trials precluded performance of a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the evidence addressing the oncologic safety of NSRH over that of CRH in cervical cancer is neither adequate nor statistically relevant. A properly designed, prospective randomized noninferiority trial is needed to assess the oncologic outcomes of NSRH before this surgical approach is adopted as the standard of care for patients with tumors that have unfavorable prognostic features. Until then, NSRH should be considered primarily for patients with small tumors due to the very low risk of parametrial and lymph node involvement, with maximum benefit conferred to the patient from autonomic nerve preservation without any requirement for adjuvant treatment.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the oncologic outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) in cervical cancer and to compare them with those of standard conventional radical hysterectomy (CRH). METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for studies published to March 3, 2014 was performed using the search term "nerve sparing or radical hysterectomy and cervical cancer." The main outcome measure was the recurrence rate after NSRH. The hazard ratio for recurrence was used to compare NSRH and CRH. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies reported data on oncologic outcomes of NSRH. The recurrence rate after NSRH was reported to be 0 to 19.6 %. Of the 21 studies, 10 comparing outcomes between NSRH and CRH were assessed for their eligibility to be included in a meta-analysis. However, the scarcity and heterogeneity of effect estimates in these comparison trials precluded performance of a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the evidence addressing the oncologic safety of NSRH over that of CRH in cervical cancer is neither adequate nor statistically relevant. A properly designed, prospective randomized noninferiority trial is needed to assess the oncologic outcomes of NSRH before this surgical approach is adopted as the standard of care for patients with tumors that have unfavorable prognostic features. Until then, NSRH should be considered primarily for patients with small tumors due to the very low risk of parametrial and lymph node involvement, with maximum benefit conferred to the patient from autonomic nerve preservation without any requirement for adjuvant treatment.
Authors: Ju Won Roh; Dong Ock Lee; Dong Hoon Suh; Myong Cheol Lim; Sang Soo Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Sun Lee; Sang Yoon Park Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.401