Which factors predict parametrial involvement in stage IB cervical cancer? A Chinese multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinicopathological risk factors influencing parametrial involvement (PI) in stage IB cervical cancer patients and compare the oncological outcomes between Q-M type B radical hysterectomy (RH) group and Q-M type C RH group. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the clinicopathological factors related to PI. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage IB cervical cancer who underwent Q-M type B or Q-M type C RH under different circumstances of PI were also compared before and after propensity score matching (1:1 matching). RESULTS: A total of 6358 patients were enrolled in this study. Depth of stromal invasion>1/2 (HR: 3.139, 95% CI: 1.550-6.360; P = 0.001), vaginal margin (+) (HR: 4.271, 95% CI: 1.368-13.156; P = 0.011), lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (+) (HR: 2.238, 95% CI: 1.353-3.701; P = 0.002) and lymph node metastases (HR: 5.173, 95% CI: 3.091-8.658; P < 0.001) were associated with PI. Among the 6273 patients with negative PI, those in the Q-M type B RH group had a higher 5-year OS and DFS than those in the Q-M type C RH group before and after 1:1 matching. Among the 85 patients with positive PI, Q-M type C RH showed no survival benefits before and after 1:1 matching. CONCLUSION: Stage IB cervical cancer patients with no lymph node metastasis, LVSI(-) and depth of stromal invasion ≤1/2 may be considered for Q-M type B radical hysterectomy.

Effect of annualized surgeon volume on major surgical complications for abdominal and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in China, 2004-2016: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that higher surgeon volume leads to improved perioperative outcomes for oncologic surgery; however, the effect of surgeon volumes on surgical outcomes might differ according to the surgical approach used. This paper attempts to evaluate the effect of surgeon volume on complications or cervical cancer in an abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) cohort and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) cohort. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective study using the Major Surgical Complications of Cervical Cancer in China (MSCCCC) database to analyse patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) from 2004 to 2016 at 42 hospitals. We estimated the annualized surgeon volumes in the ARH cohort and in the LRH cohort separately. The effect of the surgeon volume of ARH or LRH on surgical complications was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 22,684 patients who underwent RH for cervical cancer were identified. In the abdominal surgery cohort, the mean surgeon case volume increased from 2004 to 2013 (3.5 to 8.7 cases) and then decreased from 2013 to 2016 (8.7 to 4.9 cases). The mean surgeon case volume number of surgeons performing LRH increased from 1 to 12.1 cases between 2004 and 2016 (P < 0.01). In the abdominal surgery cohort, patients treated by intermediate-volume surgeons were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.11-2.15) than those treated by high-volume surgeons. In the laparoscopic surgery cohort, surgeon volume did not appear to influence the incidence of intraoperative or postoperative complications (P = 0.46; P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of ARH by intermediate-volume surgeons is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. However, surgeon volume may have no effect on intraoperative or postoperative complications after LRH.

The long-term outcomes of clinical responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term oncological outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical surgery (NCRS) and definitive chemoradiotherapy (DR) for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: The clinical outcome of 480 patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer (308 clinical responders, 111 clinical non-responders, 61 unclear) who underwent NCRS (and subgroup assessments) were compared with those of 233 patients who underwent DR. RESULTS: The clinical response rate was 73.5% in the NCRS group. Multivariate COX regression analyses revealed that NCRS was not correlated with the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (p = 0.067) or disease-free survival (DFS) rate (p = 0.249). In a subgroup of NCRS, the clinical response group was also shown to be a protective independent factor of 5 year OS rate compared to the DR group (aHR, 0.403; 95% CI, 0.209-0.777), but had no correlation with the 5 year DFS rate (p = 0.089). On the other hand, the clinical non-response group had no correlation with the 5 year OS rate (p = 0.780) or DFS rate (p = 0.669). CONCLUSION: Clinical responders who underwent NCRS exhibited a better oncological outcome compared to those who underwent DR. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ; CHiCTR1800017778.

Comparison of the Oncological Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer Based on the New FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Multicentre Retrospective Study.

Objective: To compare the 3-year oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. Methods: Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in the China database, patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IB2 cervical cancer disease who underwent RRH and ARH from 2004 to 2018 were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate between patients receiving RRH and those receiving ARH. The Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching were used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. Results: A total of 1,137 patients with cervical cancer were enrolled in this study, including the RRH group (n = 468) and the ARH group (n = 669). The median follow-up time was 45 months (RRH group vs. ARH group: 24 vs. 60 months). Among the overall study population, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS and DFS between the RRH group and the ARH group (OS: 95.8% vs. 97.6% p = 0.244). The Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.394, 95% CI: 0.552-3.523, p = 0.482). However, RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 1.985, 95% CI: 1.078-3.655 p = 0.028). After 1:1 propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in 3-year OS between the RRH group and the ARH group (96.6% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.470); however, the 3-year DFS of the RRH group was lower than that of the ARH group (91.0% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.025). The Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that RRH was not an independent risk factor for 3-year OS (HR: 1.622, 95% CI: 0.449-5.860 p = 0.461), but RRH was an independent risk factor for 3-year DFS (HR: 2.498, 95% CI: 1.123-5.557 p = 0.025). Conclusion: Among patients with stage I A1 (LVSI +)-I B2 cervical cancer based on the FIGO 2018 staging system, RRH has a lower 3-year DFS than ARH, suggesting that RRH may not be suitable for early cervical cancer patients.

Discussion on the Treatment Strategy for Stage â ¡A1 Cervical Cancer (FIGO 2018).

Objective: This study aimed to explore the best treatment strategy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer patients by comparing the survival outcomes of two treatment methods: abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) with standard postoperative therapy and radio-chemotherapy (R-CT). Methods: Patients with FIGO2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent ARH or received R-CT were screened from the clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in China (Four C) database. The recurrence cases between the two groups were analyzed. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients diagnosed with stage IIA1 cervical cancer in 47 hospitals in mainland China between 2004 and 2018 were compared by using propensity score matching (PSM). Results: A total of 724 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the total study population, The R-CT group had higher recurrence (22.8% for the R-CT group and 11.2% for the ARH group, P<0.001) rates compared to the ARH group.The 5-year OS and DFS of the ARH group (n=658) were significantly higher than those of the R-CT group (n=66) (OS: 85.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.009; DFS: 79.2%vs. 70.5%, P=0.027). R-CT was associated with worse 5-year OS (HR=3.19, 95% CI: 1.592-6.956, P=0.001) and DFS (HR=2.089, 95% CI: 1.194-3.656, P=0.01). After 1:2 PSM, the 5-year OS and DFS of the ARH group (n=126) were significantly higher than those of the R-CT group (n=64) (OS:88.9% vs. 70.1%, P=0.04; DFS:82.8% vs. 69.8%, P=0.019). R-CT was still associated with worse 5-year OS (HR=2.391, 95% CI: 1.051-5.633, P=0.046) and DFS (HR=2.6, 95% CI: 1.25-5.409, P=0.011). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that for stage FIGO2018 stage IIA1 cervical cancer patients, ARH offers better oncological outcomes than R-CT.

Comparison of survival outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix after radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma (AC/ASC) of the cervix after radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy. METHODS: Propensity score matching (1:4) was used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients with SCC and AC/ASC in China. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred sixty-six patients were enrolled according to the criteria. The 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group (n = 5251) were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (n = 215). After PSM (1:4), the 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (72.2% vs 56.9%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.895; 67.6% vs 47.8%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.056). In stage I-IIA2 patients, after PSM (1:4), there was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the SCC group (n = 143) and the AC/ASC group (n = 34) (68.5% vs 67.8%, P = 0.175). However, the 5-year DFS in the SCC group was higher than that in the AC/ASC group (71.0% vs 55.7%, P = 0.045; HR = 2.037, P = 0.033). In stage IIB-IV patients, after PSM (1:4), the 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group (n = 690) were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (n = 173) (70.7% vs 54.3% P < 0.001 vs 1.940%, P < 0.001 vs 45.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For stage I-IIA2, there was no significant difference in 5-year survival time, but patients with AC/ASC were more likely to relapse. In the more advanced IIB-IV stage, the oncological outcome of radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy of cervical AC/ASC was worse than that of SCC.

Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.

Background: This study explored the rationality of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC for cervical cancer to determine outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of cervical cancer patients who had received radical surgery or Radiotherapy. Multivariate analysis was used to compare 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for FIGO 2018 stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC cervical cancer patients. Based on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, IIIC cases were divided into 5 subgroups: T1a, T1b, T2a, T2b, and T3. The 5-year OS and DFS of the different IIIC subgroups were further compared using multivariate analysis. Results: (I) The 5-year OS for FIGO 2018 IIIA (n=251), IIIB (n=1,824), and IIIC (n=3,137) were 73.7%, 69.0%, and 74.3%, respectively (P<0.001), and DFS rates were 64.3%, 60.6%, and 68.0%, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that IIIA was associated with 5-year OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.739-1.349, P=0.990], but there was no significant correlation with DFS (HR =1.081, 95% CI: 0.843-1.387, P=0.539). Compared with IIIC, IIIB had a lower 5-year OS (HR =1.291, 95% CI: 1.135-1.468, P<0.001) and DFS (HR =1.354, 95% CI: 1.215-1.508, P<0.001). (II) The 5-year OS of the T1a group (n=4), T1b group (n=861), T2a group (n=587), T2b (n=641) group, and T3 group (n=1,044) were 100.0%, 81.9%, 76.1%, 74.0%, and 65.0%, respectively (P<0.001), and the 5-year DFS were 100.0%, 74.5%, 65.9%, 72.6%, and 61.3%, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that compared with the T1b group, T2a (HR =1.405, 95% CI: 1.076-1.834, P=0.012), T2b (HR =1.592, 95% CI: 1.203-2.108, P=0.001), and T3 (HR =2.495, 95% CI: 1.971-3.157, P<0.001) were associated with a lower 5-year OS. T2a (HR =1.372, 95% CI: 1.108-1.699, P=0.004), T2b (HR =1.337, 95% CI: 1.061-1.684, P=0.014), and T3 (HR =2.015, 95% CI: 1.659-2.446, P<0.001) were associated with lower 5-year DFS. Conclusions: The outcome for FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer is not worse than that for stage IIIB or IIIA. The outcome for stage IIIC is related to local tumor factors. As the local tumor progresses, the oncological outcome worsens.

Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for 2018 FIGO stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer: a large multicenter study.

Background: Nomograms are predictive tools widely used for estimating cancer prognosis. We aimed to develop/validate a nomogram to predict the postsurgical 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) probability for patients with stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer [2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2018)]. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled cervical cancer patients at 47 hospitals with stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 disease from the Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment for Cervical Cancer in China database. All patients were assigned to either the development or validation cohort (75% of patients used for model construction and 25% used for validation). OS and DFS were defined as the clinical endpoints. Clinicopathological variables were analyzed based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model. A nomogram was established and validated internally (with bootstrapping) and externally, and its performance was assessed according to the concordance index (C-index), receiver-operating characteristic curve, and calibration plot. Results: In total, 4,065 patients were enrolled and assigned to the development cohort (n=3,074) or validation cohort (n=991). The OS nomogram was constructed based on age, FIGO stage, stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). The DFS nomogram was constructed based on the FIGO stage, histological type, stromal invasion, and LVSI. Both nomograms showed greater discrimination than the FIGO 2018 staging system in the development cohort [OS nomogram vs. FIGO 2018: C-index =0.69 vs. 0.61, area under the curve (AUC): 69.8 vs. 60.3; DFS nomogram vs. FIGO 2018: C-index =0.64 vs. 0.57, AUC: 62.6 vs. 56.9], and the same results were observed the definition in the validation cohort. Calibration plots demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and actual probabilities of 5-year OS/DFS in the development and validation cohorts. We stratified the patients into 3 subgroups with differences in OS/DFS. Each risk subgroup presented a distinct prognosis. Conclusions: We successfully developed a robust and powerful model for predicting 5-year OS/DFS in stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2018) for the first time. Internal and external validation showed that the model had great prediction performance and was superior to the currently utilized FIGO staging system.

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

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.

Comparison of survival outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and radiochemotherapy IIA2 (FIGO2018) cervical cancer: a retrospective study from a large database of 63,926 cases of cervical cancer in China.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year DFS disease-free survival (DFS) of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and radiochemotherapy (R-CT) for stage IIA2 (FIGO 2018) cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Based on this multicenter, retrospective cohort study based on data from the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China (Four C) database, 609 cases with 2018 FIGO stage IIA2 cervical cancer from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. The 5-year OS and 5-year DFS of patients with either of the two treatment methods were compared by means of a multivariate Cox regression model and the log-rank method in the total study population and after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: We selected 609 of 63,926 patients and found that R-CT was associated with a significantly worse 5-year OS (71.8% vs. 95.3%, P < 0.001; hazard ratio (HR) = 6.596, 95% CI 3.524-12.346) and 5-year DFS (69.4% vs. 91.4%, P < 0.001; HR = 4.132, 95% CI 2.570-6.642, P < 0.001) than ARH in the total study population. After matching (n = 230/230), among FIGO 2018 IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS were lower in the R-CT group than in the ARH group (OS: 73.9% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001; HR = 5.633, 95% CI 2.826-11.231, P < 0.001; DFS: 69.2% vs. 91.1%, P < 0.001; HR = 3.978, 95% CI 2.336-6.773, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage FIGO 2018 IIA2 cervical cancer, ARH offers better 5-year OS and DFS outcomes than R-CT; however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective studies, this needs to be confirmed by randomized trials.

Comparison of survival outcomes with or without Para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer in China from 2004 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Current opinions on whether surgical patients with cervical cancer should undergo para-aortic lymphadenectomy at the same time are inconsistent. The present study examined differences in survival outcomes with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the survival outcomes of 8802 stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients (FIGO 2009) who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy + pelvic lymphadenectomy (n = 8445) or abdominal radical hysterectomy + pelvic lymphadenectomy + para-aortic lymphadenectomy (n = 357) from 37 hospitals in mainland China. RESULTS: Among the 8802 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer, 1618 (18.38%) patients had postoperative pelvic lymph node metastases, and 37 (10.36%) patients had para-aortic lymph node metastasis. When pelvic lymph nodes had metastases, the para-aortic lymph node simultaneous metastasis rate was 30.00% (36/120). The risk of isolated para-aortic lymph node metastasis was 0.42% (1/237). There were no significant differences in the survival outcomes between the para-aortic lymph node unresected and resected groups. No differences in the survival outcomes were found before or after matching between the two groups regardless of pelvic lymph node negativity/positivity. CONCLUSION: Para-aortic lymphadenectomy did not improve 5-year survival outcomes in surgical patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Therefore, when pelvic lymph node metastasis is negative, the risk of isolated para-aortic lymph node metastasis is very low, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is not recommended. When pelvic lymph node metastasis is positive, para-aortic lymphadenectomy should be carefully selected because of the high risk of this procedure.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy Alone for Oncological Outcomes of Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer-A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients with cervical cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT) with those who received abdominal radical hysterectomy alone (ARH). METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 1410 patients with stage IB3 cervical cancer who received NACT (n=583) or ARH (n=827). The patients in the NACT group were divided into an NACT-sensitive group and an NACT-insensitive group according to their response to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The 5-year oncological outcomes were significantly better in the NACT group than in the ARH group (OS: 96.2% vs. 91.2%, respectively, p=0.002; DFS: 92.2% vs. 87.5%, respectively, p=0.016). Cox multivariate analysis suggested that NACT was independently associated with a better 5-year OS (HR=0.496; 95% CI, 0.281-0.875; p=0.015), but it was not an independent factor for 5-year DFS (HR=0.760; 95% CI, 0.505-1.145; p=0.189). After matching, the 5-year oncological outcomes of the NACT group were better than those of the ARH group. Cox multivariate analysis suggested that NACT was still an independent protective factor for 5-year OS (HR=0.503; 95% CI, 0.275-0.918; p=0.025). The proportion of patients in the NACT group who received postoperative radiotherapy was significantly lower than that in the ARH group (p<0.001). Compared to the ARH group, the NACT-sensitive group had similar results as the NACT group. The NACT-insensitive group and the ARH group had similar 5-year oncological outcomes and proportions of patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stage IB3 cervical cancer, NACT improved 5-year OS and was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients receiving postoperative radiotherapy. These findings suggest that patients with stage IB3 cervical cancer, especially those who are sensitive to chemotherapy, might consider NACT followed by surgery.

The Effect of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume on Oncology Outcomes in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Purpose: To examine the association between surgical volume and surgical and oncological outcomes of women with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the oncological outcomes of 1,137 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer receiving LRH from 2004 to 2016. The surgical volume for each surgeon was defined as low [fewer than 50 surgeries, n = 392(34.5%)], mid [51-100 surgeries, n = 315(27.7%)], and high [100 surgeries or more, n = 430(37.8%)]. Surgical volume-specific survival was examined with Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable analysis, and propensity score matching. Results: The operative times of the high-volume group (227.35 ± 7.796 min) were significantly shorter than that of the low- (272.77 ± 4.887 min, p < 0.001) and mid-volume (255.86 ± 4.981 min, p < 0.001) groups. Blood loss in the high-volume group (169.42 ± 8.714 ml) was significantly less than that in the low-volume group (219.24 ± 11.299 ml, p = 0.003). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the low-volume, mid-volume, and high-volume groups were similar (DFS: 91.9, 86.7, and 89.2%, p = 0.102; OS: 96.4, 93.5, and 94.2%, p = 0.192). Multivariable analysis revealed surgical volume was not an independent risk factor for OS or DFS. The rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was similar among the three groups (p = 0.210). Conclusions: Surgical volume of LRH may not be a prognostic factor for patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Surgery at high-volume surgeon is associated with decreased operative time and blood loss.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals. RESULTS: (1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-matching study. The differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the LRH and ARH were compared under the conditions of real-world study and case-control matching (1:1 matching). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the outcomes of LRH (n = 580) and ARH (n = 1653) in 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 80.6% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.421; DFS: 78.6% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.376). After 1:1 matching, there was no difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LRH (n = 554) and ARH (n = 554) (OS: 80.4% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.993; DFS: 79.0% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.695). Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 5-year OS and DFS, and postoperative adjuvant therapy affected patient prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested that there was no difference in LRH (n = 313) and ARH (n = 1092) in 5-year OS or DFS in patients who underwent standard postoperative adjuvant therapy (OS: 83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.992; DFS: 79.0% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.323). After 1:1 pairing, the 5-year OS and DFS in LRH (n = 295) and ARH (n = 295) showed no difference. Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the 5-year OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS: The ethical approval number is NFEC-2017-135, and the clinical research registration number is CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 1,484 cervical cancer patients with IB1 and tumor size <2 cm on final pathology, who received ARH (n=899) or LRH (n=585) between January 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into visible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=668, LRH: n=444) and invisible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=231, LRH: n=141) according to tumor type. RESULTS: LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (93.3% vs. 93.1%, p=0.997; 96.2% vs. 97.5%, p=0.351) in total study population. LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.58-1.58; p=0.871) or OS rate (HR=1.37; 95% CI=0.65-2.89; p=0.409) by multivariable analysis. In the visible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (91.9% vs. 91.9%, p=0.933; 95.0% vs. 96.9%, p=0.276), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS or OS rate (p=0.804, p=0.324). In the invisible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH also showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (97.3% vs. 97.1%, p=0.815; 100% vs. 99.5%, p=0.449), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (p=0.723). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, whether the tumor is visible or not, the oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH among cervical cancer patients are comparable. This suggests that LRH may be suitable for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Identifier: CHiCTR180017778.

Comparative study on the oncological prognosis of laparoscopy and laparotomy for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rate of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: Based on a large database containing information on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in China, the oncological outcomes of the two surgical approaches for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: After 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 510 patients were included in the LRH group, and 999 patients were included in the ARH group. LRH showed a similar 5-year OS but a lower DFS rate (81.3% vs. 87.4%, P = 0.018) than ARH. In the multivariate analysis, LRH was identified as an independent risk factor for worse 5-year DFS (HR = 1.569, 95% CI: 1.131-2.176, P = 0.007). Among patients with a tumour size <2 cm, the LRH and ARH groups showed similar OS and DFS rates after 1:2 PSM, and multivariate analysis showed that the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the OS or DFS rate. Among patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, there was no difference in OS between the LRH and ARH groups after matching, but the DFS in the LRH group was significantly lower than that in the ARH group (81.1% vs 86.2%, P = 0.034). In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic approach was not associated with OS but was independently associated with worse DFS (HR = 1.546, 95% CI: 1.094-2.185, P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: LRH was associated with poorer 5-year DFS than ARH in patients with stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma. However, LRH showed 5-year OS and DFS rates similar to those of ARH among patients with a tumour size <2 cm. For patients with a tumour size ≥2 cm and <4 cm, LRH showed a lower DFS rate than ARH.

Effect of pre-operative radiotherapy on long-term outcomes among women with Stage IB1 to IIB cervical squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcomes between pre-operative radiotherapy followed by open surgery and direct open surgery among women with Stage IB1-IIB cervical squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study among women with Stage IB1-IIB cervical squamous cell carcinoma who underwent open surgery either directly (SD group) or with pre-operative radiotherapy (PR group) in China 2004-2016. Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups were compared by Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall, 8385 women with Stage IB1-IIB were included (PR group, n = 447; SD group, n = 7938). Five-year OS and DFS was significantly lower in the PR than in the SD group (OS: 81.7% vs 91.6%, P < 0.001; DFS: 76.3% vs 86.7%, P < 0.001). As compared with direct surgery, pre-operative radiotherapy was an independent risk factor for 5-year OS (adjusted hazard raio [aHR], 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-2.30) and DFS (aHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73) by multivariate Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the findings. CONCLUSION: Among women with Stage IB1-IIB cervical squamous cell carcinoma, outcomes were found to be worse for those undergoing pre-operative radiotherapy followed by open surgery than for those undergoing direct open surgery.

Hazard Ratio Analysis of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for IA1 With LVSI-IIA2 Cervical Cancer: Identifying the Possible Contraindications of Laparoscopic Surgery for Cervical Cancer.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2 cervical cancer and to analyze the Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) of LRH among the total study population and different subgroups. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. The oncological outcomes of LRH (n = 4,236) and ARH (n = 9,177) were compared. The HRs and 95% confidence intervals for the effect of LRH on 5-year OS and DFS were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, there was no difference in DFS between LRH and ARH in the unadjusted analysis (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.99-1.25, p = 0.075). The risk-adjusted analysis revealed that LRH was independently associated with inferior DFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.11-1.40, p < 0.001). There was no difference in OS between the two groups in the unadjusted analysis (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17, p = 0.997) or risk-adjusted analysis (HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.98-1.35, p = 0.091). For patients with FIGO stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, LRH was not associated with lower DFS or OS (p = 0.637 or p = 0.107, respectively) in risk-adjusted analysis. For patients with FIGO stage IB1 and tumor size ≥2 cm, LRH was associated with lower 5-year DFS (HR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.19-1.69, p < 0.001) in risk-adjusted analysis, but it was not associated with lower 5-year OS (p = 0.107). For patients with FIGO stage IIA1 and tumor size <2 cm, LRH was not associated with lower 5-year DFS or OS (p = 0.954 or p = 0.873, respectively) in risk-adjusted analysis. For patients with FIGO stage IIA1 and tumor size ≥2 cm, LRH was associated with lower DFS (HR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.16-1.90, p = 0.002) and 5-year OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.22-2.33, p = 0.002) in risk-adjusted analysis. Conclusion: The 5-year DFS of LRH was worse than that of ARH for FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI-IIA2. LRH is not an appropriate option for FIGO stage IB1 or IIA1 and tumor size ≥ 2 cm compared with ARH.

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter.

BACKGROUND: Early stage cervical cancer is prevalent in China and remains a major public health burden in developing countries. We aimed to determine the long term oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of 37 hospitals. All consecutive early stage cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion to IB1, who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy between January 2004 and December 2016, were included. We compared the disease free survival and overall survival of the two approaches in 1:1 case-control matched settings based on prognosis related factors. RESULTS: We selected 8470 of 46 313 patients. After matching (n=1601/1601), we found that laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly worse 5 year disease free survival (89.5% vs 93.1%, p=0.001; hazard ratio (HR) 1.60, p=0.001), but not 5 year overall survival (94.3% vs 96.0%, HR=1.48, p=0.058). In the subgroup analysis, in patients with a tumor diameter <2 cm (n=739/739), both 5 year disease free survival and overall survival were similar between the laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy groups. However, when tumor diameter was 2-4 cm (n=898/898), laparoscopic surgery was a poor prognosis risk factor for 5 year disease free survival (84.7% vs 90.8%, p=0.001; HR=1.81, p<0.001), but not 5 year overall survival (90.9% vs 93.8%, p=0.077; HR=1.53, p=0.059). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early cervical cancer, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with significantly poorer long term oncologic outcome, although in patients with tumors <2 cm, the 5 year overall survival and 5 year disease free survival were similar.