Marcelo A Vieira1, Gabriel J Rendón2, Mark Munsell3, Lina Echeverri2, Michael Frumovitz4, Kathleen M Schmeler4, Rene Pareja2, Pedro F Escobar4, Ricardo Dos Reis1, Pedro T Ramirez5. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil. 2. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto de Cancerología - Las Américas, Medellín, Colombia. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: peramire@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radical trachelectomy is considered standard of care in patients with early-stage cervical cancer interested in future fertility. The goal of this study was to compare operative, oncologic, and fertility outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing open vs. minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients from four institutions who underwent radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer from June 2002 to July 2013. Perioperative, oncologic, and fertility outcomes were compared between patients undergoing open vs. minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-eight patients underwent open radical trachelectomy and 42 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS=laparoscopic or robotic). There were no differences in patient age, body mass index, race, histology, lymph vascular space invasion, or stage between the two groups. The median surgical time for MIS was 272min [range, 130-441min] compared with 270min [range, 150-373min] for open surgery (p=0.78). Blood loss was significantly lower for MIS vs. laparotomy (50mL [range, 10-225mL] vs. 300mL [50-1100mL]) (p<0.0001). Nine patients required blood transfusion, all in the open surgery group (p=0.010). Length of hospitalization was shorter for MIS than for laparotomy (1day [1-3 days] vs. 4days [1-9 days]) (p<0.0001). Three intraoperative complications occurred (3%): 1 bladder injury, and 1 fallopian tube injury requiring unilateral salpingectomy in the MIS group and 1 vascular injury in the open surgery group. The median lymph node count was 17 (range, 5-47) for MIS vs. 22 (range, 7-48) for open surgery (p=0.03). There were no differences in the rate of postoperative complications (30% MIS vs. 31% open surgery). Among 83 patients who preserved their fertility (33 MIS vs. 50 open surgery), 34 (41%) patients attempted to get pregnant. Sixteen (47%) patients were able to do so (MIS: 2 vs. laparotomy: 14, p=0.01). The pregnancy rate was higher in the open surgery group when compared to the MIS group (51% vs. 28%, p=0.018). However, median follow-up was shorter is the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (25months [range, 10-69] vs. 66months [range, 11-147]). To date, there has been one recurrence in the laparotomy group and none in the MIS group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that radical trachelectomy via MIS results in less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. Fertility rates appear higher in patients undergoing open radical trachelectomy.
OBJECTIVES: Radical trachelectomy is considered standard of care in patients with early-stage cervical cancer interested in future fertility. The goal of this study was to compare operative, oncologic, and fertility outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing open vs. minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients from four institutions who underwent radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer from June 2002 to July 2013. Perioperative, oncologic, and fertility outcomes were compared between patients undergoing open vs. minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-eight patients underwent open radical trachelectomy and 42 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS=laparoscopic or robotic). There were no differences in patient age, body mass index, race, histology, lymph vascular space invasion, or stage between the two groups. The median surgical time for MIS was 272min [range, 130-441min] compared with 270min [range, 150-373min] for open surgery (p=0.78). Blood loss was significantly lower for MIS vs. laparotomy (50mL [range, 10-225mL] vs. 300mL [50-1100mL]) (p<0.0001). Nine patients required blood transfusion, all in the open surgery group (p=0.010). Length of hospitalization was shorter for MIS than for laparotomy (1day [1-3 days] vs. 4days [1-9 days]) (p<0.0001). Three intraoperative complications occurred (3%): 1 bladder injury, and 1 fallopian tube injury requiring unilateral salpingectomy in the MIS group and 1 vascular injury in the open surgery group. The median lymph node count was 17 (range, 5-47) for MIS vs. 22 (range, 7-48) for open surgery (p=0.03). There were no differences in the rate of postoperative complications (30% MIS vs. 31% open surgery). Among 83 patients who preserved their fertility (33 MIS vs. 50 open surgery), 34 (41%) patients attempted to get pregnant. Sixteen (47%) patients were able to do so (MIS: 2 vs. laparotomy: 14, p=0.01). The pregnancy rate was higher in the open surgery group when compared to the MIS group (51% vs. 28%, p=0.018). However, median follow-up was shorter is the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (25months [range, 10-69] vs. 66months [range, 11-147]). To date, there has been one recurrence in the laparotomy group and none in the MIS group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that radical trachelectomy via MIS results in less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. Fertility rates appear higher in patients undergoing open radical trachelectomy.
Authors: Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez; Mario Leitao; David Cibula; Christina Fotopoulou; Ali Kucukmetin; Gabriel Rendon; Myriam Perrotta; Reitan Ribeiro; Marcelo Vieira; Glauco Baiocchi; Henrik Falconer; Jan Persson; Xiaohua Wu; Mihai Emil Căpilna; Nicolae Ioanid; Berit Jul Mosgaard; Igor Berlev; Dilyara Kaidarova; Alexander Babatunde Olawaiye; Kaijiang Liu; Silvana Pedra Nobre; Roman Kocian; Srdjan Saso; Stuart Rundle; Florencia Noll; Audrey Tieko Tsunoda; Kolbrun Palsdottir; Xiaoqi Li; Elena Ulrikh; Zhijun Hu; Rene Pareja Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: N D Fleming; P T Ramirez; P T Soliman; K M Schmeler; G B Chisholm; A M Nick; S N Westin; M Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pedro F Escobar; Pedro T Ramirez; Rafael E Garcia Ocasio; Rene Pareja; Steve Zimberg; Michael Sprague; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Evan S Smith; Ashley S Moon; Robin O'Hanlon; Mario M Leitao; Yukio Sonoda; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Jennifer J Mueller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 7.623