You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm
Free
  1. Xu Chen1,
  2. Na Zhao2,
  3. Piaopiao Ye1,
  4. Jiahua Chen1,
  5. Xingwei Nan1,
  6. Hongqin Zhao1,3,
  7. Kai Zhou1,3,
  8. Yuyang Zhang1,3,
  9. Jisen Xue1,
  10. Haihong Zhou1,
  11. Huiling Shang4,
  12. Hanxiao Zhu5,
  13. Van der Merwe Leanne1 and
  14. Xiaojian Yan1,3
  1. 1 Department of Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
  2. 2 Department of Gynecology, Wenzhou People’s Hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
  3. 3 Center for Uterine Cancer Diagnosis & Therapy Research of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China
  4. 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First People's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, Guangdong, China
  5. 5 Department of Gynecology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou, China
  1. Correspondence to Xiaojian Yan, Department of Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang 325000, China; yxjbetter2016{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective There is recent evidence that demonstrates worse oncologic outcomes associated with minimally invasive radical hysterectomy when compared with open radical hysterectomy, particularly in patients with tumors >2 cm. The aim of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO) 2009 stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm.

Methods A retrospective review of medical records was performed to identify patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open radical hysterectomy during January 2010 and December 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (1) histologically confirmed cervical cancer including all histological types; (2) FIGO 2009 stage IB1; (3) tumor size ≤2 cm (determined by pelvic examination, magnetic resonance imaging or transvaginal ultrasound); (4) had undergone radical hysterectomy (type II or III) with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy as primary surgical treatment; (5) had follow-up information. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA1 or IA2, tumor size >2 cm, or who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, those with cervical cancer incidentally found after simple hysterectomy, or with insufficient data were excluded. Concurrent comparison between the laparoscopic and open cohorts was made for disease-free survival and overall survival.

Results A total of 325 cervical cancer patients were included; of these, 129 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 196 patients had open surgery. The median follow-up times were 51.8 months (range 2–115) for laparoscopic surgery and 49.5 months (range 3–108) for open surgery. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival than those in the open group (90.4% vs 97.7%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in 5 year overall survival between groups (96.9% vs 99.4%, p=0.33). The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower disease-free survival compared with open surgery (adjusted hazard ratio 4.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 17.06; p=0.02). In patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or with grade II–III, laparoscopic surgery had a significantly worse 5 year disease-free survival compared with the open surgery group (74% vs 100%, p=0.01, and 88.8% vs 98.0%, p=0.02, respectively).

Conclusion Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was associated with worse disease-free survival for stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm compared with open radical hysterectomy. Further studies may shed additional light on the impact of minimally invasive surgery in this low-risk patient population.

  • cervical cancer
  • laparoscopes
  • laparotomy

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000994

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • XC and NZ are joint first authors.

    • XC and NZ contributed equally.

    • Contributors XC, NZ and XY: Conceptualization, data curation, writing original draft preparation, manuscript preparation, supervision. PP-Y, J-HC, XW-N: Data Collection. HQZ, KZ, Y-YZ and H-LS: Data analysis and interpretation. LVDM and H-HZ: Statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This work was supported by funds from the National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 81503293 (XY), the Technology Development Funds of Wenzhou City No. Y20190014 (XY), and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China No. LY19H160028 (HZ).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. The data of figures and tables can be published.

    Linked Articles