David W Doo1, C Tyler Kirkland2, Lauren H Griswold3, Gerald McGwin4, Warner K Huh5, Charles A Leath5, Kenneth H Kim5. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America. Electronic address: ddoo@uabmc.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, United States of America. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, United States of America. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative morbidity and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2016 was identified. Patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer were included and were grouped by ARH vs. RRH. Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups. RESULTS: 105 patients were identified; 56 underwent ARH and 49 underwent RRH. Those who had ARH were more likely to have lesions that were ≥2 cm (62% vs. 39%, p = 0.02) and that were higher grade (p = 0.048). Other tumor characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates between groups. Additionally, there were no differences in recurrence risk (RR) (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.22), progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.28), or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.16). However, in those with tumors ≥2 cm there was a higher risk of recurrence in the overall cohort (30% vs. 8%, p = 0.006), and a shorter PFS in the RRH group (HR 0.31, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis patients that underwent ARH or had tumors < 2 cm had a lower likelihood of recurrence (HR 0.38, p = 0.04; HR 0.175, p = 0.002) and death (HR 0.21, p = 0.029; HR 0.15, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity was similar between those undergoing ARH vs. RRH for IB1 cervical cancer. Patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm undergoing RRH had a shorter PFS compared to ARH. On multivariate analysis, RRH and tumor size ≥ 2 cm were independently associated with recurrence and death in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative morbidity and survival between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2010 to 2016 was identified. Patients with stage IB1cervical cancer were included and were grouped by ARH vs. RRH. Tumor characteristics, perioperative complications, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups. RESULTS: 105 patients were identified; 56 underwent ARH and 49 underwent RRH. Those who had ARH were more likely to have lesions that were ≥2 cm (62% vs. 39%, p = 0.02) and that were higher grade (p = 0.048). Other tumor characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates between groups. Additionally, there were no differences in recurrence risk (RR) (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.22), progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.28), or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.16). However, in those with tumors ≥2 cm there was a higher risk of recurrence in the overall cohort (30% vs. 8%, p = 0.006), and a shorter PFS in the RRH group (HR 0.31, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis patients that underwent ARH or had tumors < 2 cm had a lower likelihood of recurrence (HR 0.38, p = 0.04; HR 0.175, p = 0.002) and death (HR 0.21, p = 0.029; HR 0.15, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity was similar between those undergoing ARH vs. RRH for IB1cervical cancer. Patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm undergoing RRH had a shorter PFS compared to ARH. On multivariate analysis, RRH and tumor size ≥ 2 cm were independently associated with recurrence and death in this population.
Authors: Alberto A Mendivil; Mark A Rettenmaier; Lisa N Abaid; John V Brown; John P Micha; Katrina L Lopez; Bram H Goldstein Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Pamela J Paley; Dan S Veljovich; Chirag A Shah; Elise N Everett; Amy E Bondurant; Charles W Drescher; William A Peters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lorna A Brudie; Floor J Backes; Sarfraz Ahmad; Xiang Zhu; Neil J Finkler; Glenn E Bigsby; David E Cohn; David O'Malley; Jeffrey M Fowler; Robert W Holloway Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Dan S Veljovich; Pamela J Paley; Charles W Drescher; Elise N Everett; Chirag Shah; William A Peters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Thomas J Herzog; Richard E Shaw; William M Burke; Israel Deutsch; Jason D Wright Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B M Sert; J F Boggess; S Ahmad; A L Jackson; N M Stavitzski; A A Dahl; R W Holloway Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Rene Pareja; Aldo Lopez; Marcelo Vieira; Reitan Ribeiro; Alessandro Buda; Xiaojian Yan; Yao Shuzhong; Naven Chetty; David Isla; Mariano Tamura; Tao Zhu; Kristy P Robledo; Val Gebski; Rebecca Asher; Vanessa Behan; James L Nicklin; Robert L Coleman; Andreas Obermair Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
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