You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 30, Issue 9
  • Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: oncologic outcomes based on tumor diameter
  1. Junshen He1,
  2. Min Hao2,
  3. Ping Liu1,
  4. Zhihua Liu3,
  5. Jinghe Lang1,4,
  6. Xiaonong Bin5 and
  7. Chunlin Chen1
  1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern Medical University Nanfang Hospital, Guangzhou, China
  2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
  3. 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shenzhen Maternity and Childcare Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
  4. 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Dongcheng-qu, Beijing, China
  5. 5 Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chunlin Chen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern Medical University Nanfang Hospital, Guangzhou 510515, China; ccl1{at}smu.edu.cn

Abstract

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.

  • cervical cancer
  • laparoscopes
  • laparotomy

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001504

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

    • JH, MH and PL contributed equally.

    • Contributors All authors approved the final version of the study. MH, JH, and PL contributed equally to the work. CC handled the protocol development, study supervision, and study design. MH collected and analyzed the data, and interpreted the results. JH collected the data and conducted the literature search. PL participated in the drafting of the original version of the manuscript. ZL collected the data. JL participated in the protocol development, study supervision, and study design. XB analyzed the data and interpreted the results. All authors participated in writing, review, editing of the manuscript.

    • Funding The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Support Program of China (2014BAI05B03), the National Natural Science Fund of Guangdong (2015A030311024), and the Science and Technology Plan of Guangzhou (158100075).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the ethics committee of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University (ethical No NEEC-2017–135, clinical trial No CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)).

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

    • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. The data are not published elsewhere. Data are available upon reasonable request.