Surgical margin status in relation to surgical approach in the management of early-stage cervical Cancer: A Canadian cervical Cancer collaborative (4C) study.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical margin status in women undergoing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is an important prognostic factor. We sought to determine whether close (<3 mm) and positive surgical margins are associated with surgical approach and survival. METHODS: This is a national retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Patients with stage IA1/LVSI-Ib2(FIGO 2018) with lesions up to 4 cm at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2019 were included. Surgical approach included robotic/laparoscopic (LRH), abdominal (ARH) or combined laparoscopic-assisted vaginal/vaginal (LVRH) radical hysterectomy. Recurrence free survival(RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: 956 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical margins were as follows: negative (87.0%), positive (0.4%) or close <3 mm (6.8%), missing (5.8%). Most patients had squamous histology (46.9%); 34.6% had adenocarcinomas and 11.3% adenosquamous. Most were stage IB (75.1%) and 24.9% were IA. Mode of surgery included: LRH(51.8%), ARH (39.2%), LVRH (8.9%). Predictive factors for close/positive margins included stage, tumour diameter, vaginal involvement and parametrial extension. Surgical approach was not associated with margin status (p = 0.27). Close/positive margins were associated with a higher risk of death on univariate analysis (HR = non calculable for positive and HR = 1.83 for close margins, p = 0.017), but not significant for OS when adjusted for stage, histology, surgical approach and adjuvant treatment. There were 7 recurrences in patients with close margins (10.3%, p = 0.25). 71.5% with positive/close margins received adjuvant treatment. In addition, MIS was associated with a higher risk of death (OR = 2.39, p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Surgical approach was not associated to close or positive margins. Close surgical margins were associated with a higher risk of death. MIS was associated with worse survival, suggesting that margin status may not be the driver of worse survival in these cases.

Comparison of outcomes between abdominal, minimally invasive and combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with stage IAI/IA2 cervical cancer: 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) study.

OBJECTIVE: Although minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIS-H) has been associated with worse survival compared to abdominal hysterectomy (AH) for cervical cancer, only 8% of patients in the LACC trial had microinvasive disease (Stage IA1/IA2). We sought to determine differences in outcome among patients undergoing MIS-H, AH or combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy (CVLH) for microinvasive cervical cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing hysterectomy (radical and non radical) for FIGO 2018, microinvasive cervical cancer across 10 Canadian centers between 2007 and 2019 was performed. Recurrence free survival (RFS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier Survival analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: 423 patients with microinvasive cervical cancer were included; 259 (61.2%) Stage IA1 (22/8.5% with LVSI) and 164(38.8%) IA2. The median age was 44 years (range 24-81). The most frequent histology was squamous (59.4%). Surgical approach was: 50.1% MIS-H (robotic or laparoscopic), 35.0% AH and 14.9% CVLH. Overall, 70.9% underwent radical hysterectomy and 76.5% had pelvic lymph node assessment. There were 16 recurrences (MIS-H:4, AH:9, CVLH: 3). No significant difference in 5-year RFS was found (96.7% MIS-H, 93.7% AH, 90.0% CVLH, p = 0.34). In a sub-analysis of patients with IA1 LVSI+/IA2(n = 186), survival results were similar. Further, there was no significant difference in peri-operative complications (p = 0.19). Patients undergoing MIS-H had a shorter median length of stay(0 days vs 3 (AH) vs. 1.5 (CVLH), p < 0.001), but had more ER visits (16.0% vs 3.6% (AH), 3.5% (CVLH), p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, including only patients with microinvasive cervical cancer, no difference in recurrence was found by surgical approach. This may be due to the low rate of recurrence making differences hard to detect or due to a true lack of difference. Hence, this patient population may benefit from MIS without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study.

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare between cohorts. Within the total cohort, 238/1696 (14%) had no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen (122 MIS, 103 AH, and 13 VLH). The majority of cases in the cohort were FIGO 2018 stage IB1 (43.7%) and underwent a radical hysterectomy (81.9%). There was no statistical difference between stage, histology, and radical vs simple hysterectomy between the abdominal and minimally invasive groups. There were no significant differences in RFS (5-year: MIS/LVH 97.7%, AH 95.8%, p = 0.23) or OS (5-year: MIS/VLH 98.9%, AH 97.4%, p = 0.10), although event-rates were low. There were only two recurrences. In this large study including only patients with no residual cervical cancer on hysterectomy specimen, no significant differences in survival were seen by surgical approach. This may be due to the small number of events or due to no actual difference between the groups. Further studies are warranted.

Estimation risk of lymph nodal invasion in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: Cervical cancer application.

Introduction: Lymph node status is a major prognostic factor in early-stage cervical cancer. Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis is essential for optimal therapeutic management. The aim of the study was to develop a web-based application to predict the risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with early-stage (IA1 with positive lymph vascular space invasion, IA2 and IB1) cervical cancer. Materials and methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from two prospective multicenter trials, Senticol 1 and 2 pooled together in the training dataset. The histological risk factors were included in a multivariate logistic regression model in order to determine the most suitable prediction model. An internal validation of the chosen prediction model was then carried out by a cross validation of the 'leave one out cross validation' type. The prediction model was implemented in an interactive online application of the 'Shinyapp' type. Finally, an external validation was performed with a retrospective cohort from L'Hôtel-Dieu de Québec in Canada. Results: Three hundred twenty-one patients participating in Senticol 1 and 2 were included in our training analysis. Among these patients, 280 did not present lymph node invasion (87.2%), 13 presented isolated tumor cells (4%), 11 presented micrometastases (3.4%) and 17 macrometastases (5.3%). Tumor size, presence of lymph-vascular space invasion and stromal invasion were included in the prediction model. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve from this model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% CI [0.69- 0.90]). The AUC from the cross validation was 0.65. The external validation on the Canadian cohort confirmed a good discrimination of the model with an AUC of 0.83. Discussion: This is the first study of a prediction score for lymph node involvement in early-stage cervical cancer that includes internal and external validation. The web application is a simple, practical, and modern method of using this prediction score to assist in clinical management.