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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 of survival outcomes between radio-chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy in patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: long-term oncological outcome analysis in 37 Chinese hospitals.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radio-chemotherapy (R-CT) and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy (RH) in stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Based on the large amount of diagnostic and treatment cervical cancer data in China, a real-world study and 1:1 case-control matching were used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients. RESULTS: In this real-world study, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 8949) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 18,152). After applying the inclusion criteria, the OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 582) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 4308). After 1:1 case-control matching, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 535) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 535) (OS: 76.1% vs. 84.6%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.819; DFS: 75.1% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.462, respectively). Further stratification showed that for stage IB1 and IIA1 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 300) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 300) (OS: 78.9% vs. 87.0%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.160; DFS: 77.0% vs. 84.9%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.053, respectively). In stage IB2 and IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS in the R-CT group (n = 235) was lower than that in the RH group (n = 235) (72.5% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.039; HR = 1.550), but no difference in the 5-year DFS was found between the two groups (72.6% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.151). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that for stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients, RH offers better overall survival and disease-free survival outcomes than R-CT, however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective study, it needs to be confirmed by randomized trials. In addition, we need to further understand the quality of life of the two treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: registration number: CHiCTR1800017778; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/. registration date: August 14, 2018.

Effect of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy on major surgical complications in women with stage IA-IIB cervical cancer in China, 2004-2015.

OBJECTIVES: To report the trends in surgical approaches and compare the major surgical complication rates of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS: From the major surgical complications of cervical cancer in China (MSCCCC) database, we obtained the demographic, clinical, treatment hospital and complication data of patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy from 2004 to 2015 at 37 hospitals. The patients were assigned to the laparoscopic and abdominal surgery groups. The differences in the complication rates were analyzed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified a total of 18447 patients; 5491 (29.8%) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 12956 (70.2%) underwent abdominal surgery. The proportion of laparoscopic surgery rose from 0.35% in 2004 to 49.31% in 2015. In the multivariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had increased odds of intraoperative and postoperative complications (OR = 3.88, 95% CI = 2.47-6.11; OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.11-1.82). A more detailed analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with increased rates of intraoperative ureteral injury (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 2.11-6.95), bowel injury (OR = 14.83, 95% CI = 1.32-167.25), vascular injury (OR = 3.37, 95% CI = 1.18-9.62), postoperative vesicovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), ureterovaginal fistula (OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 2.08-8.32), rectovaginal fistula (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 1.63-39.53), and chylous leakage (OR = 10.65, 95% CI = 1.18-95.97), while abdominal surgery was more likely to cause bowel obstruction (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.87). The two groups had similar rates of bladder injury, obturator nerve injury, pelvic hematoma, rectovaginal fistula and venous thromboembolism (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with more major surgical complications, especially intraoperative ureteral injury and postoperative fistula, than abdominal surgery among women with cervical cancer.

Risk factors and long-term impact of urologic complications during radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in China, 2004-2016.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to describe the incidence and risk factors of urologic complications during radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. The secondary objective was to investigate the impact of urologic complications on long-term survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the MSCCCC (Major Surgical Complications of Cervical Cancer in China) database. Data on demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, hospital characteristics and urologic complications were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the risk factors of urologic complications and Cox proportional hazards models were performed to identify prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 21,026 patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer were identified. The incidence of any urologic complications was 1.54%: 83 (0.39%) ureteral injuries, 17 (0.08%) bladder injuries, 1 (0.005%) ureteral injury combined with bladder injury, and 223 (1.05%) genitourinary fistulas. In a multivariable analysis, surgery at a women and children's hospital (OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.47-3.48), surgery at a facility in a first-tier city (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.24-3.48), and laparoscopic surgery (OR = 4.68, 95% CI 3.44-6.36) were associated with a higher risk of urologic complications. Cox proportional hazards models revealed that the occurrence of urologic complications was a significant predictor of 2-year overall survival (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.09-2.92), but was not a predictor of 5-year overall survival (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.83-1.94). CONCLUSION: The incidence of urologic complications during radical hysterectomy is low. The risk of urologic complications may be higher for patients who are treated at a women and children's hospital, are treated in first-tier city hospitals, and receive laparoscopic surgery. Urologic complications have an impact on short-term survival, but not on long-term survival.

Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancer patients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. RESULTS: RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, RRH was not associated with decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates (HR1.688, 95% CI 0.423-6.734, p = 0.458; HR1.267, 95%CI 0.518-3.098, p = 0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm.

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.

Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the survival outcomes of stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm who underwent laparoscopic or abdominal radical hysterectomy in China between 2004 and 2016. A real-world study (RWS) and 1:1 matching was used in the study. RESULTS: After 1:1 matching, laparoscopic (n = 926) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (n = 926) had similar 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Subsequently, in cervical squamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic and abdominal groups (724 cases, respectively) showed comparable 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Finally, in cervical adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm, the laparoscopic group (n = 174) had a similar 5-year overall survival rate but a lower disease-free survival rate compared to those of the abdominal group (disease-free survival: 89.9% vs. 98.0%, respectively, P = 0.006; hazard ratio (HR), 5.094; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.400-18.535; P = 0.013; n = 174). The RWS results were similar to the 1:1 matching results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size ≤ 2 cm might be suitable for laparoscopic surgery, while patients with adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma with tumor size ≤ 2 cm are not candidates for laparoscopic surgery.

Sipa1 promoter polymorphism predicts risk and metastasis of lung cancer in Chinese.

Signal-induced proliferation associated gene 1 (Sipa1) is a signal transducer to activate the Ras-related proteins and modulate cell progression, differentiation, adhesion and cancer metastasis. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in Sipa1 are associated with lung cancer risk and metastasis. Three common SNPs (rs931127A > G, rs2448490G > A, and rs3741379G > T) were genotyped in a discovery set of southern Chinese population and then validated the promising SNPs in a validation set of an eastern Chinese population in a total of 1559 lung cancer patients and 1679 cancer-free controls. The results from the two sets were consistent, the rs931127GG variant genotype had an increased risk of lung cancer compared to the rs931127AA/GA genotypes (OR = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.09-1.49) after combination of the two populations, and the rs931127GG interacted with pack-year smoked on increasing lung cancer risk (P = 0.037); this SNP also had an effect on patients' clinical stages (P = 0.012) that those patients with the rs931127GG genotype had a significant higher metastasis rate and been advanced N, M stages at diagnosis. However, these associations were not observed for rs2448490G > A and rs3741379G > T in the discovery set. Our data suggest that the SNP rs931127A > G in the promoter of Sipa1 was significantly associated with lung cancer risk and metastasis, which may be a biomarker to predict the risk and metastasis of lung cancer.

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.

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 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.

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.

A non-synonymous polymorphism Thr115Met in the EpCAM gene is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in Chinese population.

As a tumor-associated antigen and a surface marker of breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) plays an important role in not only cell adhesion, morphogenesis, metastases but also carcinogenesis. A non-synonymous C/T polymorphism (rs1126497) in exon3 of EpCAM causes a transition of 115 amino acid from Met to Thr. Another polymorphism (A/G, rs1421) in the 3'UTR causes loss of has-miR-1183 binding. A multiple independent case-control analysis was performed to assess the association between EpCAM genotypes and breast cancer risk. We observed that the variant EpCAM genotype (rs1126497 CT, and TT) was associated with substantially increased risk of breast cancer. Genotyping a total of 1643 individuals with breast cancer and 1818 control subjects in Eastern and Southern Chinese populations showed that rs1126497 CT + TT genotype had an odd ratio of 1.40 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57) for developing breast cancer compared with CC genotype. The allele T increases the risk of breast cancer in a dose-dependent response manner (P (trend) < 0.001). Moreover, compared to breast cancer patients carrying the CC genotype, the EpCAM SNP rs1126497 CT or TT carrier was significantly associated with early breast cancer onset (P = 0.0023). However, no significant difference was found in genotype frequencies at the rs1421 A/G site between cases and controls. These findings suggest that M115T polymorphism in EpCAM may be a genetic modifier for developing breast cancer.