Biliang Chen1, Mei Ji2, Pengfei Li3, Ping Liu3, Wei Zou1, Zhao Zhao2, Bo Qu4, Zhiqiang Li3, Xiaonong Bin5, Jinghe Lang6, Hailin Wang7, Chunlin Chen8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xijing Hospital, Airforce Medical University, Xian 710032, China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China. 5. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 511436, China. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China. 7. Gynecological Oncology Hospital, Xi'an International Medical Center Hospital, Xian 710075，China; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China. Electronic address: wanghailinyx@163.com. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China. Electronic address: ccl1@smu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancer patients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. RESULTS: RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, RRH was not associated with decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates (HR1.688, 95% CI 0.423-6.734, p = 0.458; HR1.267, 95%CI 0.518-3.098, p = 0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancerpatients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. RESULTS: RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, RRH was not associated with decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates (HR1.688, 95% CI 0.423-6.734, p = 0.458; HR1.267, 95%CI 0.518-3.098, p = 0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm.
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