PURPOSE: To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.
PURPOSE: To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.
Authors: Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Sharyn N Lewin; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-06-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pernille T Jensen; Tine H Schnack; Ligita P Frøding; Signe F Bjørn; Henrik Lajer; Algirdas Markauskas; Kirsten M Jochumsen; Katrine Fuglsang; Jacob Dinesen; Charlotte H Søgaard; Erik Søgaard-Andersen; Marianne M Jensen; Aage Knudsen; Laura H Øster; Claus Høgdall Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shitanshu Uppal; Paola A Gehrig; Katherine Peng; Kristin L Bixel; Koji Matsuo; Monica H Vetter; Brittany A Davidson; M Paige Cisa; Brittany F Lees; Laurie L Brunette; Katherine Tucker; Allison Stuart Staley; Walter H Gotlieb; Robert W Holloway; Kathleen G Essel; Laura L Holman; Ester Goldfeld; Alexander Olawaiye; Stephen L Rose Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Benny Brandt; Vasileios Sioulas; Derman Basaran; Theresa Kuhn; Katherine LaVigne; Ginger J Gardner; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Kara C Long Roche; Jennifer J Mueller; Elizabeth L Jewell; Vance A Broach; Oliver Zivanovic; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Rene Pareja; Aldo Lopez; Marcelo Vieira; Reitan Ribeiro; Alessandro Buda; Xiaojian Yan; Yao Shuzhong; Naven Chetty; David Isla; Mariano Tamura; Tao Zhu; Kristy P Robledo; Val Gebski; Rebecca Asher; Vanessa Behan; James L Nicklin; Robert L Coleman; Andreas Obermair Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luis Chiva; Vanna Zanagnolo; Denis Querleu; Nerea Martin-Calvo; Juan Arévalo-Serrano; Mihai Emil Căpîlna; Anna Fagotti; Ali Kucukmetin; Constantijne Mom; Galina Chakalova; Shamistan Aliyev; Mario Malzoni; Fabrice Narducci; Octavio Arencibia; Francesco Raspagliesi; Tayfun Toptas; David Cibula; Dilyara Kaidarova; Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli; Mariana Tavares; Dmytro Golub; Anna Myriam Perrone; Robert Poka; Dimitrios Tsolakidis; Goran Vujić; Marcin A Jedryka; Petra L M Zusterzeel; Jogchum Jan Beltman; Frederic Goffin; Dimitrios Haidopoulos; Herman Haller; Robert Jach; Iryna Yezhova; Igor Berlev; Margarida Bernardino; Rasiah Bharathan; Maximilian Lanner; Minna M Maenpaa; Vladyslav Sukhin; Jean-Guillaume Feron; Robert Fruscio; Kersti Kukk; Jordi Ponce; Jose Angel Minguez; Daniel Vázquez-Vicente; Teresa Castellanos; Enrique Chacon; Juan Luis Alcazar Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Giorgio Bogani; Violante Di Donato; Giovanni Scambia; Francesco Raspagliesi; Vito Chiantera; Giulio Sozzi; Tullio Golia D'Augè; Ludovico Muzii; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Ottavia D'Oria; Enrico Vizza; Andrea Giannini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 4.614