Comparison of oncologic outcomes between radical laparotomy surgery versus minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer

Comparación de los resultados oncológicos entre cirugía radical por laparotomía versus la de mínima invasión en cáncer temprano de cérvix

Introduction: radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer patients who do not wish to preserve fertility. The main objective of this study is to compare overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence rates of patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIS) versus open surgery. Likewise, the histopathological characteristics, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative complications, are analyzed for both techniques, Methodology: an observational retrospective cohort study between 2011 and 2017. Patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with cervical carcinoma in stages IA1 (lymph vascular space invasion) and IB1 (FIGO 2009) receiving follow-up care until December 2020, were included.  The Chi-square test, Fisher´s exact test or Mann Whitney U test were used for bivariate analysis, to determine the differences between the techniques with regards to sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and intraoperative early and late complications. Overall survival rates and recurrence densities were calculated with data provided by the patients. Results: of the 113 patients undergoing radical hysterectomy, 75 were excluded from the analysis. Overall survival was 100% in the laparotomy group versus 97.6% in the MIS group. The overall recurrence rate was of 8 cases, 14.1 per 1.000 person-years of observation in the MIS group. Patients in the laparotomy group developed no recurrences. There was a significant difference in median intraoperative blood loss (600 cc in laparotomy versus 100 cc in laparoscopy, p= 0.002); 11.4% of patients required intraoperative transfusion (25% in the laparotomy group versus 2.4% in the MIS group, p=0.006). Conclusions: patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had a higher recurrence and mortality rate than that of open approach.

1. World Health Organization. Estimated age-standardized incidence and mortality rates (World) in 2020, worldwide, females, all ages [Internet]. GLOBOCAN; 2020 [Citado 2021] Disponible en: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.
3. Bruni L, Albero G. Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Report. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre); 2019.
4. Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C, Chuang L Zakashansky K. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS. 2008;12(3):227–37.
5. Behbehani S, Suarez-salvador E, Buras M, Magtibay P, Magrina J. Mortality Rates in Laparoscopic and Robotic Gynecologic Oncology Surgery : A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;26(7):1253-1267.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.06.017
6. Ramirez P, Michael F, Pareja R. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;379(20):1895–904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.
7. Melamed A, Murgul D, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1905–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1804923.
8. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, Martin N, Arévalo J, et al. SUCCOR study : an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(9):1269–1277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506.
9. Rodriguez J, Rauh JA, Saenz J, Isla DO, Jaime G, Pereira R, et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early- ­ stage cervical cancer : a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(4):504-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-002086.
10. Odetto D, Puga MC, Saadi J, Noll F, Perrotta M. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy : an analysis of oncologic outcomes from Hospital Italiano ( Argentina). Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(2):863–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000323.
11. Pareja R, Rendón GJ, Sanz-lomana CM, Monzón O, Ramirez PT. Surgical, oncological , and obstetrical outcomes after abdominal radical trachelectomy — A systematic literature review. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;131(1):77–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.010.
12. Cohn DE, Tamimi HK, Goff BA. Intraperitoneal spread of cervical carcinoma after laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(5 Pt 2):864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00039-2
13. Wang P. Squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix after laparoscopic surgery. A case report. J Reprod Med. 1997;42(12):801–804.
14. Capozzi VA, Anchora LP, Turco LC, Lombisani A, Chiantera V, Felice F De, et al. How to Select Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Patients Still Suitable for Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy : a Propensity- Matched Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(6):1947(6):1947–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08162-5.
15. Belval C, Barrager E. Peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102(3):580–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.02.033.
16. Bogani G, Ghezzi F, Chiva L, Gisone B, Pinelli C, Acqua AD, et al. Patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer : a propensity ­ matched analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(7):987–992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001381.
17. Gil-moreno A, Carbonell-socias M, Salicr S. Radical Hysterectomy : Efficacy and Safety in the Dawn of Minimally Invasive Techniques. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;26(3):492–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.06.007.
18. Matanes E, Abitbol J, Kessous R. Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2018;41(4):450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.09.013
19. Kanao H, Aoki Y, Takeshima N. Unexpected result of minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4): e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e73.
20. Chao X, Li L, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, et al. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer : protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China. BMJ Open. 2019;29(9): e029055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029055.
21. Kimmig R, Ind T. Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer : consequences for treatment after LACC Study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e75
22. Shekhar S, Jeyaseelan L. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2019;20(10):2881-2881. http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.10.2881.
23. Leitao M. The LACC Trial Has Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Been Dealt a Knockout Punch? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(7):1248–1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001342.
24. Desai VB, Guo XM, Fan L, Wright JD. Inpatient Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in the United States : Trends and Factors Associated With Approach Selection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;24(1):151-158.e1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.830.
25. Margulies SL, Vargas M V, Denny K, Sparks AD, Marfori CQ, Moawad G, et al. Comparing benign laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy outcomes by time. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):758–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06825-8.
26. Swenson C, Kamdar N, Harris J. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):650.e1-650.e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.027.
27. Andreas O, Rebecca A, Pareja R, Frumovitz M, Lopez A, Moretti-Marques R, eta al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):249.e1-249.e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.036.
28. Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, Frumovitz M, Lopez A, Moretti-marques R, et al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):249.e1-249.e10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.036.