Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy
- PMID: 37862783
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107047
Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy
Abstract
Objective: Aim of our study was to evaluate whether the different laparotomic (ARH) or minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches (MIS) in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, present different patterns of recurrence of the disease. The secondary endpoint of the study was the evaluation of the variables most involved with the risk of relapse and therefore lower DFS and OS.
Material and methods: The study enrolled patients with definitive histological diagnosis of squamous or adenocarcinoma stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive or abdominal radical hysterectomy from 2001 to 2018.
Results: The study enrolled 360 patients and 59 patients (16.4 %) reported a disease relapse. The data showed that ARH group was not associated with different recurrence patterns than MIS group (p = 0.14). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference regarding DFS (p = 0.52) and OS (p = 0.29) between the ARH group and the MIS group.
Conclusions: MIS, in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer, is not associated with different relapse patterns compared to ARH, nor with a higher risk of distance metastasis and finally, without significant difference in term of DFS and OS. More studies are needed to determine the factors that modify the site of relapse.
Keywords: Abdominal radical hysterectomy; Cervical cancer; Minimally invasive surgery.
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ∼ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest No conflict of interest is disclosed.
Similar articles
-
Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Apr;28(4):824-828. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.07.021. Epub 2020 Jul 28. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 32730990
-
Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience.Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Aug;162(2):284-291. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.028. Epub 2021 Jun 1. Gynecol Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34083029
-
Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021 Apr;47(4):1516-1526. doi: 10.1111/jog.14693. Epub 2021 Feb 1. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021. PMID: 33527615
-
A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Sep;306(3):623-637. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06348-5. Epub 2022 Jan 21. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022. PMID: 35061066 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis.Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Feb;164(2):455-460. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.11.018. Epub 2021 Nov 27. Gynecol Oncol. 2022. PMID: 34848071
Cited by
-
Efficacy and safety analysis of non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer (IA2 ~ IB1): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Apr 30;11:1337752. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1337752. eCollection 2024. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 38745744 Free PMC article.
-
Risks of Cervical Cancer Recurrence After Fertility-Sparing Surgery and the Role of Human Papillomavirus Infection Types.J Clin Med. 2024 Oct 22;13(21):6318. doi: 10.3390/jcm13216318. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39518458 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis.Front Oncol. 2024 May 15;14:1303165. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1303165. eCollection 2024. Front Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38812787 Free PMC article.
-
Prognostic nomograms for locally advanced cervical cancer based on the SEER database: Integrating Cox regression and competing risk analysis.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Nov 8;103(45):e40408. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040408. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 39533612 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Performance and Safety of Cerviron® Vaginal Ovules in the Management of Symptomatic Cervical Lesions: A National, Multicentric Study.Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024 Oct 9;101:100762. doi: 10.1016/j.curtheres.2024.100762. eCollection 2024. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024. PMID: 39717511 Free PMC article.