ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To analyze the survival outcomes of patients in a Brazilian cohort who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with open surgery for early stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A multicenter database was constructed, registering 1280 cervical cancer patients who had undergone radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2019. For the final analysis, we included cases with a tumor ≤ 4 cm (stages Ia2 to Ib2, FIGO 2018) that underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2017. Propensity score matching was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 776 cases were ultimately analyzed, 526 of which were included in the propensity score matching analysis (open, n = 263; MIS, n = 263). There were 52 recurrences (9.9%), 28 (10.6%) with MIS and 24 (9.1%) with open surgery (p = 0.55); and 34 deaths were recorded, 13 (4.9%) and 21 (8.0%), respectively (p = 0.15). We noted a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 88.2% and 90.3% for those who received MIS and open surgery, respectively (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.76-2.29; p = 0.31) and a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 91.8% and 91.1%, respectively (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.40-1.61; p = 0.53). There was no difference in 3-year DFS rates between open surgery and MIS for tumors ≤ 2 cm (95.7% vs. 90.8%; p = 0.16) or > 2 cm (83.9% vs. 85.4%; p = 0.77). Also, the 5-year OS between open surgery and MIS did not differ for tumors ≤ 2 cm (93.1% vs. 93.6%; p = 0.82) or > 2 cm (88.9% vs. 89.8%; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes were similar between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy in this large retrospective multicenter cohort.
Subject(s)
Laparoscopy , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Hysterectomy , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Neoplasm Staging , Retrospective Studies , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/surgeryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Several controversies remain on conservative management of cervical cancer. Our aim was to develop a consensus recommendation on important and novel topics of fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS: The consensus was sponsored by the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO) from March 2020 to September 2020 and included a multidisciplinary team of 55 specialists. A total of 21 questions were addressed and they were assigned to specialists' groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Further, the coordinators evaluated the recommendations that were classified by the level of evidence, and finally, they were voted by all participants. RESULTS: The questions included controversial topics on tumor assessment, surgical treatment, and surveillance in conservative management of cervical cancer. The two topics with lower agreement rates were the role of minimally invasive approach in radical trachelectomy and parametrial preservation. Additionally, only three recommendations had <90% of agreement (fertility preservation in Stage Ib2, anti-stenosis device, and uterine transposition). CONCLUSIONS: As very few clinical trials have been developed in surgery for cervical cancer, most recommendations were supported by low levels of evidence. We addressed important and novel topics in conservative management of cervical cancer and our study may contribute to literature.