Literature DB >> 32788262

SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer.

Luis Chiva1, Vanna Zanagnolo2, Denis Querleu3, Nerea Martin-Calvo4, Juan Arévalo-Serrano5, Mihai Emil Căpîlna6, Anna Fagotti7, Ali Kucukmetin8, Constantijne Mom9, Galina Chakalova10, Shamistan Aliyev11, Mario Malzoni12, Fabrice Narducci13, Octavio Arencibia14, Francesco Raspagliesi15, Tayfun Toptas16, David Cibula17, Dilyara Kaidarova18, Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli19, Mariana Tavares20, Dmytro Golub21, Anna Myriam Perrone22, Robert Poka23, Dimitrios Tsolakidis24, Goran Vujić25, Marcin A Jedryka26, Petra L M Zusterzeel27, Jogchum Jan Beltman28, Frederic Goffin29, Dimitrios Haidopoulos30, Herman Haller31, Robert Jach32, Iryna Yezhova33, Igor Berlev34, Margarida Bernardino35, Rasiah Bharathan36, Maximilian Lanner37, Minna M Maenpaa38, Vladyslav Sukhin39, Jean-Guillaume Feron40, Robert Fruscio41,42, Kersti Kukk43, Jordi Ponce44, Jose Angel Minguez45, Daniel Vázquez-Vicente45, Teresa Castellanos45, Enrique Chacon46, Juan Luis Alcazar47.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse.
METHODS: We obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group.
RESULTS: Mean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m2 (range; 15-49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52).
CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted. © IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cervix uteri; laparoscopes; laparotomy; neoplasm recurrence, local; surgical oncology

Year:  2020        PMID: 32788262     DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  38 in total

Review 1.  Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach.

Authors:  Benny Brandt; Gabriel Levin; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2022-02-15

Review 2.  Radical Hysterectomy After the LACC Trial: Back to Radical Vaginal Surgery.

Authors:  Denis Querleu; Delphine Hudry; Fabrice Narducci; Agnieszka Rychlik
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2022-02-23

3.  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

4.  Indocyanine green-guided sentinel lymph node mapping during laparoscopic surgery with vaginal cuff closure but no uterine manipulator for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yoichi Aoki; Hiroyuki Kanao; Atsushi Fusegi; Makiko Omi; Sanshirou Okamoto; Terumi Tanigawa; Hidetaka Nomura; Kohei Omatsu; Akiko Tonooka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.850

5.  Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Pengfei Li; Xuemei Zhan; Chifei Lv; Zhong Lin; Ying Yang; Wuliang Wang; Shaoguang Wang; Min Hao; Bin Zhu; Xiaonong Bin; Jinghe Lang; Ping Liu; Chunlin Chen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 6.  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

7.  Abdominal radical trachelectomy as fertility-sparing management for early stages of cervical cancer: Our experience in 18 cases.

Authors:  Szilard Leo Kiss; Anas Fandi; Alexandra Lavinia Cozlea; Mihai Gheorghe; Mihai Stanca; Nicolae Bacalbașa; Andreea Anamaria Moldovan; Mihai Emil Căpîlna
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  Retrospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in a Single Tertiary Care Institution from Lithuania between 2009 and 2019.

Authors:  Danuta Vasilevska; Dominika Vasilevska; Andrzej Semczuk; Vilius Rudaitis
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-17       Impact factor: 2.430

Review 9.  Cervical Cancer Surgery: Current State of Affairs.

Authors:  Fan Chun Yang; Wei Huang; Weihong Yang; Jie Liu; Guihai Ai; Ning Luo; Jing Guo; Peng Teng Chua; Zhongping Cheng
Journal:  Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther       Date:  2021-04-30

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.