Introduction/Background Recently, results from the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial were published indicating that patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have a lower rate of disease-free survival and overall survival than those who undergo abdominal radical hysterectomy. This is an extremely important trial that has the potential to cause a paradigm shift in how cervical cancer is managed and therefore led us to further evaluate the data from our institution. Our objective was to compare risks of recurrence, and survival in a cohort of women undergoing abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MRH) for early stage cervical cancer at a single institution.

Methodology A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2000 to 2017 was identified. 127 patients with pathologically confirmed 2018 FIGO stage IB1, IB2 and IB3 cervical cancer were included and were grouped by minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy. Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups.

Results 127 patients were identified; 44 underwent ARH and 83 underwent MRH. Those who underwent ARH were more likely to have tumors that were ≥2 cm, <4 cm (29.5% vs 22.9%, p=0.41) and ≥4 cm (16% vs 8.4%, p=0.20), but there were no significant differences. There were no significant differences in recurrence rate (12% vs 2.3%, p=0.06), progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.19), or overall survival (OS) (p=0.24).

Conclusion Recurrence rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MRH) showed noninferiority compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

Disclosure Nothing to disclose.