Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The use of robotic radical hysterectomy has greatly increased in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of women undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy. METHODS: The clinic-pathologic, treatment, and recurrence data were abstracted through an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol at 2 separate large tertiary care centers in Seattle, Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington. Data were collected from 2001-2012. Comparisons between the robotic and open cohorts were made for complications, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the study period, 109 robotic radical hysterectomies were performed. These were compared to 202 open radical hysterectomies. The groups were comparable in terms of age and body mass index (BMI). Length of stay (LOS) was considerably shorter in the robotic group (42.7 vs. 112.6 hours, p<0.001) as was estimated blood loss (EBL; 105.9 vs. 482.6 mL, p<0.001). There were more complications in the open radical hysterectomy group, 23.4% vs. 9.2% in the robotic group (p=0.002). The recurrence rate was comparable between the groups (10.1% vs. 10.4%, p=0.730). In multivariate adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not a statistically significant predictor of PFS (p=0.230) or OS (0.85). CONCLUSION: Our study, one of the largest multi-institution cohorts of patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, suggest robotic radical hysterectomy leads to comparable oncologic outcomes in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer with improved short-term surgical outcomes such as decreased LOS and EBL.

Use of CA125 and HE4 serum markers to predict ovarian cancer in elevated-risk women.

BACKGROUND: Serum markers are used before pelvic imaging to improve specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of ovarian cancer multimodal screening strategies. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled pilot trial to estimate surgical PPV of a "2 of 3 tests positive" screening rule, and to compare use of HE4 as a first-line (Arm 1) versus a second-line (Arm 2) screen, in women at high and elevated risk for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) at five study sites. Semiannual screening was offered to 208 women ages 25 to 80 years with deleterious BRCA germline mutations and to 834 women ages 35 to 80 years with pedigrees suggesting inherited susceptibility. Annual screening was offered to 130 women ages 45 to 80 years (Risk Group 3) with epidemiologic and serum marker risk factors. Rising marker levels were identified using the parametric empirical Bayes algorithm. RESULTS: Both strategies yielded surgical PPV above 25%. Protocol-indicated surgery was performed in 6 women, identifying two ovarian malignancies and yielding a surgical PPV in both arms combined of 33% (95% confidence interval: 4%-78%), 25% in Arm 1 and 50% in Arm 2. Surgical consultation was recommended for 37 women (26 in Arm 1 and 11 in Arm 2). On the basis of 12 women with at least 2 of 3 tests positive (CA125, HE4, or imaging), an intent-to-treat analysis yielded PPV of 14% in Arm 1 and 20% in Arm 2. CONCLUSIONS: Positive screens were more frequent when HE4 was included in the primary screen. IMPACT: HE4 may be useful as a confirmatory screen when rising CA125 is used alone as a primary screen.