Literature DB >> 34406459

Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.

Zhiqiang Li1, Chunlin Chen2, Ping Liu1, Anwei Lu3, Hongwei Zhao4, Xuemei Zhan5, Hui Duan1, Pengfei Li1, Weidong Zhao6, Jilong Yao7, Donglin Li8, Haixia Jiang1, Mubiao Liu9, Xiaonong Bin10, Jinghe Lang11,12.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for low-risk cervical cancer.
METHOD: We retrospectively compared the 3-year overall survival (OS) and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) of 1269 low-risk cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA2, IB1 and IIA1 with a tumour size < 2 cm, no lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), superficial stromal invasion and no lymph node involvement on imaging, and who received LRH (n = 672) and ARH (n = 597) between 2009 and 2018 at 47 hospitals.
RESULTS: In the total study population, LRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS (98.6% vs. 98.9%, P = 0.850) and DFS rates (95.7% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.285). LRH was not associated with worse 3-year OS (HR 0.897, 95% CI 0.287-2.808, P = 0.852) or DFS (HR 0.692, 95% CI 0.379-1.263, P = 0.230) as determined by multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching in 1269 patients, LRH (n = 551) and ARH (n = 551) still showed similar 3-year OS (98.4% vs. 98.8%, P = 0.704) and DFS rates (95.5% vs. 96.3%, P = 0.249). LRH was still not associated with worse 3-year OS (HR 0.816, 95% CI 0.262-2.541, P = 0.725) or DFS (HR 0.694, 95% CI 0.371-1.296, P = 0.251).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with low-risk cervical cancers < 2 cm, no LVSI, superficial stromal invasion, and no lymph node involvement on imaging, no significant differences were observed in 3-year OS or DFS rates between LRH and ARH.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Gynaecological oncology; Laparoscopic; Pathologic risk factors; Radical hysterectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34406459     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06185-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  27 in total

1.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection.

Authors:  C R Nezhat; M O Burrell; F R Nezhat; B B Benigno; C E Welander
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: When Adoption of a Novel Treatment Precedes Prospective, Randomized Evidence.

Authors:  Alexander Melamed; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Eun-Ju Lee; Hyun Kang; Dong-Ho Kim
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study.

Authors:  J-H Nam; J-Y Park; D-Y Kim; J-H Kim; Y-M Kim; Y-T Kim
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations.

Authors:  Antonino Ditto; Fabio Martinelli; Giorgio Bogani; Maria L Gasparri; Violante Di Donato; Flavia Zanaboni; Domenica Lorusso; Francesco Raspagliesi
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 4.424

6.  Early cervical cancer managed by laparoscopy and conventional surgery: comparison of treatment results.

Authors:  Piotr Sobiczewski; Mariusz Bidzinski; Pawel Derlatka; Grzegorz Panek; Anna Danska-Bidzinska; Leszek Gmyrek; Wojciech Michalski
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.437

7.  Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience.

Authors:  Mario Malzoni; Raffaele Tinelli; Francesco Cosentino; Annarita Fusco; Carmine Malzoni
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis.

Authors:  Giorgio Bogani; Antonella Cromi; Stefano Uccella; Maurizio Serati; Jvan Casarin; Ciro Pinelli; Fabio Ghezzi
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 4.137

9.  Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Jianfeng Guo; Lu Yang; Jing Cai; Linjuan Xu; Jie Min; Yi Shen; Zhoufang Xiong; Weihong Dong; Vichitra Bunyamanop; Zehua Wang
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Comparative Effectiveness of Abdominal versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer in the Postdissemination Era.

Authors:  Jin Hee Kim; Kyungjoo Kim; Seo Jin Park; Jung-Yun Lee; Kidong Kim; Myong Cheol Lim; Jae Weon Kim
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.679

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.