Elisabeth Diver1, Emily Hinchcliff2, Allison Gockley2, Alexander Melamed1, Leah Contrino3, Sarah Feldman3, Whitfield Growdon4. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Integrated Residency Program in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: wgrowdon@partners.org.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of women with cervical cancer undergoing upfront radical hysterectomy (RH) via a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a traditional laparotomy (XL) approach at 2 large US academic institutions to determine whether the mode of surgery affects patient outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING: Two academic medical institutions in the United States. PATIENTS: Women undergoing upfront RH for cervical cancer between 2000 and 2013. INTERVENTION: Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) for RH compared with XL. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 383 women met the eligibility requirements. Of these, 101 underwent an MIS (i.e., traditional laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single site, or robotic) approach, and 282 underwent an XL approach. Overall survival (median not reached; p = .29) was not different between the 2 groups. Recurrence was rare and equivalent in the 2 groups, affecting 5.0% of patients in the MIS group and 6.4% of those in the XL group (p = .86). Pelvic lymph nodes were dissected in 98% of patients in the MIS group and 97% of those in the XL group (p > .99) and were found to be positive in 10.9% and 8.5% of those patients, respectively (p = .55). The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved was higher in the MIS group (19.4 vs 16.0; p < .001). There was no between-group difference in the rate of postoperative chemotherapy (p = .32) or radiation therapy (p = .28). Surgical margins were positive in 5.0% of specimens in the MIS group and in 4.6% of specimens in the XL group (p = .54). Although there was no difference in the overall rate of complications (15.1% and 17.2%, respectively; p = .87), laparotomy was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (EBL) (50 cm3 vs 500 cm3) and a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion (3.0% vs 26.2%; p < .001). Length of perioperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (1.9 days vs 4.9 days; p < .001). CONCLUSION: MIS RH does not compromise patient outcomes, including overall survival, rate of recurrence, and the frequency of pelvic lymph node dissection or positivity. Morbidity was decreased in the MIS group, including decreased EBL, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes of women with cervical cancer undergoing upfront radical hysterectomy (RH) via a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or a traditional laparotomy (XL) approach at 2 large US academic institutions to determine whether the mode of surgery affects patient outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING: Two academic medical institutions in the United States. PATIENTS: Women undergoing upfront RH for cervical cancer between 2000 and 2013. INTERVENTION: Minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) for RH compared with XL. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 383 women met the eligibility requirements. Of these, 101 underwent an MIS (i.e., traditional laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single site, or robotic) approach, and 282 underwent an XL approach. Overall survival (median not reached; p = .29) was not different between the 2 groups. Recurrence was rare and equivalent in the 2 groups, affecting 5.0% of patients in the MIS group and 6.4% of those in the XL group (p = .86). Pelvic lymph nodes were dissected in 98% of patients in the MIS group and 97% of those in the XL group (p > .99) and were found to be positive in 10.9% and 8.5% of those patients, respectively (p = .55). The mean number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved was higher in the MIS group (19.4 vs 16.0; p < .001). There was no between-group difference in the rate of postoperative chemotherapy (p = .32) or radiation therapy (p = .28). Surgical margins were positive in 5.0% of specimens in the MIS group and in 4.6% of specimens in the XL group (p = .54). Although there was no difference in the overall rate of complications (15.1% and 17.2%, respectively; p = .87), laparotomy was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (EBL) (50 cm3 vs 500 cm3) and a higher rate of perioperative blood transfusion (3.0% vs 26.2%; p < .001). Length of perioperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MIS group (1.9 days vs 4.9 days; p < .001). CONCLUSION: MIS RH does not compromise patient outcomes, including overall survival, rate of recurrence, and the frequency of pelvic lymph node dissection or positivity. Morbidity was decreased in the MIS group, including decreased EBL, fewer blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay.
Authors: Roni Nitecki; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Kate J Krause; Ana I Tergas; Jason D Wright; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Alexander Melamed Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Benny Brandt; Vasileios Sioulas; Derman Basaran; Theresa Kuhn; Katherine LaVigne; Ginger J Gardner; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Kara C Long Roche; Jennifer J Mueller; Elizabeth L Jewell; Vance A Broach; Oliver Zivanovic; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luigi Pedone Anchora; Luigi Calrlo Turco; Nicolò Bizzarri; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Andrea Lombisani; Vito Chiantera; Francesca De Felice; Valerio Gallotta; Francesco Cosentino; Anna Fagotti; Gabriella Ferrandina; Giovanni Scambia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jaron Mark; Sarah Lynam; Kayla Morrell; Kevin Eng; Kristen Starbuck; J Brian Szender; Emese Zsiros; Peter J Frederick Journal: Gynecol Reprod Endocrinol Date: 2019