Literature DB >> 33037109

Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?

Andra Nica1, Soyoun Rachel Kim1, Lilian T Gien2, Allan Covens2, Marcus Q Bernardini3, Geneviève Bouchard-Fortier3, Rachel Kupets2, Taymaa May3, Danielle Vicus2, Stephane Laframboise3, Liat Hogen3, Maria C Cusimano4, Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with decreased survival in patients with early cervical cancer. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of an intra-uterine manipulator at the time of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy is associated with inferior oncologic outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out of all patients with cervical cancer (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma) International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion) to IIA who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at two academic centers between January 2007 and December 2017. Treatment, tumor characteristics, and survival data were retrieved from hospital records.
RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were identified at the two centers; 115 had surgery with the use of an intra-uterine manipulator while 109 did not; 53 were robotic and 171 were laparoscopic. Median age was 44 years (range 38-54) and median body mass index was 25.8 kg/m2 (range 16.6-51.5). Patients in whom an intra-uterine manipulator was not used at the time of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were more likely to have residual disease at hysterectomy (p<0.001), positive lymphovascular space invasion (p=0.02), positive margins (p=0.008), and positive lymph node metastasis (p=0.003). Recurrence-free survival at 5 years was 80% in the no intra-uterine manipulator group and 94% in the intra-uterine manipulator group. After controlling for the presence of residual cancer at hysterectomy, tumor size and high-risk pathologic criteria (positive margins, parametria or lymph nodes), the use of an intra-uterine manipulator was no longer significantly associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0, p=0.05). The only factor which was consistently associated with recurrence-free survival was tumor size (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.0, for every 10 mm increase, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: After controlling for adverse pathological factors, the use of an intra-uterine manipulator in patients with early cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was not an independent factor associated with rate of recurrence. © IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cervical cancer; laparoscopes; operative; surgical procedures

Year:  2020        PMID: 33037109     DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001816

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Authors:  Omar Touhami; Marie Plante
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Fangjie He; Songhua Yuan; Xia Chen; Siyou Zhang; Yubin Han; Tiecheng Lin; Bingnan Xu; Shimin Huang; Zhiyin Pan
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 4.711

Review 3.  Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups.

Authors:  Johanna Kampers; E Gerhardt; P Sibbertsen; T Flock; R Klapdor; H Hertel; M Jentschke; P Hillemanns
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.344

4.  Clinical effects of cervical conization with positive margins in cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yukari Nagao; Akira Yokoi; Kosuke Yoshida; Masanori Sumi; Masato Yoshihara; Satoshi Tamauchi; Yoshiki Ikeda; Nobuhisa Yoshikawa; Kimihiro Nishino; Kaoru Niimi; Hiroaki Kajiyama
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mengting Zhang; Wei Dai; Yuexiu Si; Yetan Shi; Xiangyuan Li; Ke Jiang; Jingyi Shen; Liying Ying
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Safety and efficacy study of laparoscopic or robotic radical surgery using an endoscopic stapler for inhibiting tumour spillage of cervical malignant neoplasms evaluating survival (SOLUTION): a multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial protocol.

Authors:  Soo Jin Park; Tae Wook Kong; Taehun Kim; Maria Lee; Chel Hun Choi; Seung-Hyuk Shim; Ga Won Yim; Seungmee Lee; Eun Ji Lee; Myong Cheol Lim; Suk-Joon Chang; Sung Jong Lee; San Hui Lee; Taejong Song; Yoo-Young Lee; Hee Seung Kim; Eun Ji Nam
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Survival Impact of Residual Cancer Cells in Intraoperative Peritoneal Washes following Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Jong Mi Kim; Gun Oh Chong; Nora Jee-Young Park; Yeong Eun Choi; Juhun Lee; Yoon Hee Lee; Dae Gy Hong; Ji Young Park
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Retrospective Analysis of Cervical Cancer Treatment Outcomes: Ten Years of Experience with the Vaginal Assisted Radical Laparoscopic Hysterectomy VARLH.

Authors:  R Wojdat; E Malanowska
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.

Authors:  Si Sun; Jing Cai; Ruixie Li; Yujia Wang; Jing Zhao; Yuhui Huang; Linjuan Xu; Qiang Yang; Zehua Wang
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 2.493

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.