Literature DB >> 32525511

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Roni Nitecki1, Pedro T Ramirez1, Michael Frumovitz1, Kate J Krause2, Ana I Tergas3, Jason D Wright3, J Alejandro Rauh-Hain1, Alexander Melamed3.   

Abstract

Importance: Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Objective: To quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting. Study Selection: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.
Results: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32525511      PMCID: PMC7290695          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  71 in total

1.  Comparison of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater.

Authors:  Tae Wook Kong; Suk-Joon Chang; Jisun Lee; Jiheum Paek; Hee-Sug Ryu
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.437

2.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

3.  Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.

Authors:  Biliang Chen; Mei Ji; Pengfei Li; Ping Liu; Wei Zou; Zhao Zhao; Bo Qu; Zhiqiang Li; Xiaonong Bin; Jinghe Lang; Hailin Wang; Chunlin Chen
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Recurrence of Early Stage Cervical Cancer After Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Surgery.

Authors:  Rosa Maria Laterza; Stefano Uccella; Jvan Casarin; Chiara Morosi; Maurizio Serati; Heinz Koelbl; Fabio Ghezzi
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.437

5.  Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jeong-Yeol Park; Dae-Yeon Kim; Jong-Hyeok Kim; Yong-Man Kim; Young-Tak Kim; Joo-Hyun Nam
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  Clinical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Women With Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center.

Authors:  Vanna Zanagnolo; Lucas Minig; Drusilla Rollo; Tiziana Tomaselli; Giovanni Aletti; Luca Bocciolone; Fabio Landoni; José Miguel Cardenas Rebollo; Angelo Maggioni
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.437

7.  Adverse effect of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy depends on tumor size in patients with cervical cancer.

Authors:  Ting Wen Yi Hu; Xiu Ming; Hao Zheng Yan; Zheng Yu Li
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Laparoscopic vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China.

Authors:  Zhen Yuan; Dongyan Cao; Jie Yang; Mei Yu; Keng Shen; Jiaxin Yang; Ying Zhang; Huimei Zhou
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tiefeng Cao; Yanling Feng; Qidan Huang; Ting Wan; Jihong Liu
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 1.878

View more
  28 in total

1.  Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.

Authors:  Glauco Baiocchi; Reitan Ribeiro; Ricardo Dos Reis; Deraldo Fernando Falcao; Andre Lopes; Ronaldo Lucio Rangel Costa; Gabriel Lowndes Souza Pinto; Marcelo Vieira; Lillian Yuri Kumagai; Carlos Chaves Faloppa; Henrique Mantoan; Levon Badiglian-Filho; Audrey Tieko Tsunoda; Tariane Friedrich Foiato; Carlos Eduardo Mattos Cunha Andrade; Leonardo Oliveira Palmeira; Bruna Tirapelli Gonçalves; Paulo Henrique Zanvettor
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.

Authors:  Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez; Mario M Leitao; David Cibula; Xiaohua Wu; Henrik Falconer; Jan Persson; Myriam Perrotta; Berit J Mosgaard; Ali Kucukmetin; Igor Berlev; Gabriel Rendon; Kaijiang Liu; Marcelo Vieira; Mihai E Capilna; Christina Fotopoulou; Glauco Baiocchi; Dilyara Kaidarova; Reitan Ribeiro; Silvana Pedra-Nobre; Roman Kocian; Xiaoqi Li; Jin Li; Kolbrún Pálsdóttir; Florencia Noll; Stuart Rundle; Elena Ulrikh; Zhijun Hu; Mihai Gheorghe; Srdjan Saso; Raikhan Bolatbekova; Audrey Tsunoda; Brandelyn Pitcher; Jimin Wu; Diana Urbauer; Rene Pareja
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 10.693

3.  Ergonomic Assessment of the Surgeon's Physical Workload During Robot-Assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopy in a French Multicenter Randomized Trial (ROBOGYN-1004 Trial).

Authors:  Judicaël Hotton; Emilie Bogart; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Eric Lambaudie; Fabrice Narducci; Frédéric Marchal
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.339

4.  Association of Long-term Oncologic Prognosis With Minimal Access Breast Surgery vs Conventional Breast Surgery.

Authors:  Andi Wan; Yan Liang; Li Chen; Shushu Wang; Qiyun Shi; Wenting Yan; Xiaozhen Cao; Ling Zhong; Linjun Fan; Peng Tang; Guozhi Zhang; Siyi Xiong; Cheng Wang; Zhen Zeng; Xiujuan Wu; Jun Jiang; Xiaowei Qi; Yi Zhang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 16.681

5.  Intrauterine Hematoma in the First Trimester and Pregnancy Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zhao-Juan Qin; Yu Xu; Yi Du; Ya-Li Chen; Liang Sun; Ai Zheng
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-17

6.  Differences in the Impact of Heart Rate Variability on the Surgical Approach in Patients With Early Cervical Cancer: Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery.

Authors:  Jian Liu; Jingfeng Wang; Zhaoya Deng; Shiqi Liu; Guangqiao Li; Yilin Sun; Longfei Gao; Chenghui Li; Bo Shi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 7.  Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2020.

Authors:  Yoo Young Lee; Min Chul Choi; Jeong Yeol Park; Dong Hoon Suh; Jae Weon Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  ASO Author Reflections: Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Brazilian Multicentric Cohort Study (CIRCOL).

Authors:  Glauco Baiocchi; Reitan Ribeiro; Ricardo Dos Reis; Andre Lopes; Paulo Henrique Zanvettor
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 9.  Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and MRI in Predicting the Tumor Response in Locally Advanced Cervical Carcinoma Treated by Chemoradiotherapy: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sharareh Sanei Sistani; Fateme Parooie; Morteza Salarzaei
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.161

10.  Survival Outcomes in Patients With 2018 FIGO Stage IA2-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Treated With Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighting Analysis.

Authors:  Wancheng Zhao; Yunyun Xiao; Wei Zhao; Qing Yang; Fangfang Bi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.