You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 31, Issue 7
  • Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size

Article Text

Article menu
Original research
Oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Free
  1. Dimitrios Nasioudis1,
  2. Benjamin B Albright2,
  3. Emily M Ko1,
  4. Ashley F Haggerty1,
  5. Robert L Giuntoli II1,
  6. Sarah H Kim1,
  7. Mark A Morgan1 and
  8. Nawar A Latif1
  1. 1 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dimitrios Nasioudis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, Pennsylvania, USA; dimitrios.nasioudis{at}uphs.upenn.edu

Abstract

Objective To investigate the oncologic outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm who underwent open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.

Methods The Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web-of-Science databases were queried from inception to January 2021 (PROSPERO CRD 42020207971). Observational studies reporting progression-free survival and/or overall survival for patients who had open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm were selected. Level of statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic. A random-effects model was used to compare progression and overall survival between the two groups and HR with 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the Der Simonian and Laird approach. Risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results A total of 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included encompassing 4935 patients. Of these, 2394 (48.5%) patients had minimally invasive and 2541 (51.5%) patients had open radical hysterectomy; respectively. Patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy had worse progression-free survival than those who had open surgery (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20, 2.36, I2 26%). Based on five studies, patients who had minimally invasive (n=1808) hysterectomy had a trend towards worse overall survival than those who had open surgery (n=1853) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68, I2 15%).

Conclusion Based on a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies that control for confounders, for patients with cervical cancer and tumor size <2 cm, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival than laparotomy.

  • cervical cancer
  • laparoscopes
  • laparotomy

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-002505

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.

    HIGHLIGHTS

    • Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and tumor size <2 cm is associated with worse progression-free survival.

    • Patterns of relapse appear comparable; rate of distant relapse was comparable between the two groups.

    • Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy should be avoided for all patients with cervical cancer despite tumor size.

    Introduction

    Cervical cancer is the fourth most common gynecologic malignancy worldwide.1 For patients with apparent FIGO 2009 stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion/IA2–IB2 disease, radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is recommended.2 Data from retrospective studies show that minimally invasive hysterectomy can be associated with lower blood loss, decreased rate of post=operative complications, faster recovery, and shorter inpatient hospital stay.3 4 However, the widespread use of minimally invasive surgery for patients with cervical cancer was adopted without evidence from randomized trials and was based on small retrospective studies with a relatively short follow-up.3 A recent randomized trial demonstrated worse progression-free survival for patients who had minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.4 In addition, an analysis of the National Cancer Database also revealed inferior overall survival for a similar patient population who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy between 2010 and 2013.5 It is unclear whether a higher relapse rate is related to the use of uterine manipulator, spread of tumor cells during colpotomy, or inadequate surgical technique.6 7 A recent meta-analysis of high-quality observational studies also concluded that there is an increased risk of relapse among patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, however a sub-analysis based on tumor size was not performed.6

    While major organizations such as FIGO, European Society of Gynecological Oncology, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines discourage the performance of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, for a number of surgeons the question remains whether a minimally invasive approach could potentially be considered for patients with small tumors (<2 cm).8 Recently, a series of retrospective studies have attempted to answer this question. However, given the low incidence of cervical cancer, the majority of studies do not have sufficient statistical power to detect a difference in progression-free survival among patients with small tumors, and in many studies follow-up of the minimally invasive group was short.9–24 The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the reported oncologic outcomes between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with apparent early-stage cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm.

    Methods

    This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines25 ; a protocol was determined beforehand by all participating authors and submitted for registration to the PROSPERO Registry (CRD42020207971). A comprehensive electronic search (from conception to end-of-search date January 30, 2021) of the Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases was performed using the following keywords: (cervical cancer OR cervix) AND (hysterectomy or radical) AND (laparoscopy OR robotic OR minimally invasive OR laparoscopes OR laparotomy OR open); in addition, MESH terms were used. Reference lists of the included studies as well as prior systematic reviews were systematically hand searched. Observational studies published as full papers in English were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were: patients with invasive squamous, adenosquamous, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix; patients undergoing primary radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for apparent early stage (FIGO 2009 stage IA–IIA) disease; comparison of open and minimally invasive surgical techniques; studies with at least (n=50) patients in each study group; follow-up of at least 24 months; studies reporting the number of patients with tumors <=2 cm in each surgical modality group; studies reporting data on progression-free survival; studies that attempted to control survival for confounders known to be associated with survival, such as lymphovascular invasion, depth of invasion, age, presence of co-morbidities, and histology, with statistical methods such as Cox regression, propensity score matching, or inverse probability weighting. Exclusion criteria were: studies not reporting the number of patients with tumor size <2 cm; performance of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy; significant overlapping population; no data on progression-free survival; administration of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy; follow-up <24 months; not controlling for important confounders; no data on tumor size.

    In this study we opted to select as primary outcome progression-free survival while secondary outcomes were overall survival and location of relapse. The methodological quality of observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for non-randomized studies.26 The scale was developed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies directed to the task of incorporating the quality assessments in the interpretation of meta-analytic results. Each study is evaluated on three broad perspectives: the selection of the study groups; the comparability of the groups; and the ascertainment of outcome of interest. Data extraction from all eligible papers was performed by two authors (DN, BBA) working independently. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. From each eligible study the following parameters were extracted when applicable: general study characteristics (author, country of origin, date of publication, years of recruitment), patient demographics, type of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic-assisted), number of relapses and deaths, progression-free (defined as time between diagnosis or surgery until first relapse), and overall survival (time from diagnosis or surgery to death from any cause). If the required data for the primary outcome were not readily available in the published articles or could not be extracted from published tables, online supplemental material or Kaplan-Meier curves, the corresponding authors were contacted. In studies with overlapping populations, the study with the largest number of patients was included.

    Supplemental material

    The level of statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the Χ2 and I2 statistic; values of 25%, 50%, and 75% were considered low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively A random-effects model was used to compare relapse and death rate between the two groups and OR and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the Der Simonian and Laird approach. HR and 95% confidence intervals were pooled using the generic inverse variance method as provided by the RevMan software. Forest plots were created for each comparison, while graphical funnel plots were generated to determine the presence of publication bias by visual inspection. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. If significant heterogeneity was noted, a sensitivity analysis was performed by a sequential omission algorithm.27 If HR and 95% confidence intervals were available, validated statistical methodology was used to generate them.28 Statistical analysis was performed with the Cochrane Review software (Review Manager version 5.2).29 This study did not require evaluation by an institutional review board.

    Results

    A total of 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified.10–13 15 16 20–22 24 The study selection flowchart is depicted in online supplemental Figure 1 while graphical funnel plot is depicted in online supplemental Figure 2. The majority of studies (n=6) originated from Asia12 13 15 16 21 22 followed by North America (n=2),10 11 Europe (n=1),20 and one international study24 was identified. A total of 4935 patients were included, 2394 (48.5%) patients had minimally invasive and 2541 (51.5%) patients had open radical hysterectomy, respectively, for tumors with size <2 cm. Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics, median follow-up, and method of tumor size assessment in each of the included studies; online supplemental Table 1 summarizes clinicopathological characteristics from studies with available data.12 15 16 21 22 In nine studies, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was performed with traditional laparoscopy while in two studies, originating from the United States, the vast majority of patients underwent robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy. The majority of studies (n=8) were deemed of good quality with a total Newcastle-Ottowa score >7 (Table 1).

    Supplemental material

    Supplemental material

    Supplemental material

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Basic demographic and clinical characteristics of included studies

    Patients who underwent minimally invasive hysterectomy had worse progression-free survival than those who had open surgery (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.36, I2 26%) (Figure 1). Pooled HR following serial exclusion of each study is presented in (online supplemental Table 2). When including studies (n=7)13 15 16 20–22 24 that reported at least 100 patients in each arm, the minimally invasive (n=2100) group had worse progression-free survival than the open (n=2216) hysterectomy group (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.96, I2 0%). When including studies that determined tumor size based exclusively on pathology (n=4) the minimally invasive (n=1286) group, was associated with worse progression-free survival than the open (n=1225) hysterectomy group (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.36, I2 0%). When including studies that determined tumor size based on imaging and/or physical examination (clinical stage) exclusively (n=5), there was no difference in progression-free survival between the minimally invasive (n=946) and open (n=1143) hysterectomy groups (HR 1.70, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.44, I2 55%). Based on data from studies originating from Asia (n=6),12 13 15 16 21 22 performance of minimally invasive hysterectomy was not associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 1.73, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.03, I2 46%). Similarly, based on data from studies originating from Europe and the Americas (n=4),10 11 20 24 performance of minimally invasive hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.47, I2 0%).

    Supplemental material

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Pooled progression-free survival between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy groups. MIS, minimally invasive surgery.

    Based on data from five studies,11 16 20 22 24 patients who had minimally invasive (n=1808) hysterectomy had a trend towards worse overall survival compared with those who had open surgery (n=1853) (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68) (Figure 2). Table 2 summarizes the outcomes reported in each study. Data on the location of relapse were available from four studies,12 15 21 22 and included 35 and 59 cases in the open and minimally invasive surgery groups (online supplemental Table 3). Among patients who had open surgery, 51.4% (n=18) experienced an abdominal/distant relapse, 8.6% (n=3) lymph node relapse, and 40% (n=14) a pelvic/vaginal relapse. For patients who had minimally invasive surgery, 64.4% (n=38) had an abdominal/distant relapse, 3.4% (n=2) a lymph node relapse, and 30.5% (n=18) a pelvic/vaginal relapse.

    Supplemental material

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Pooled overall survival between minimally invasive and open radical hysterectomy groups. MIS, minimally invasive surgery.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Main outcomes reported in the included studies

    Discussion

    Summary of Main Results

    Based on a large number of patients, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a worse progression-free survival than open surgery. Low heterogeneity was found but a series of sensitivity analyses (mode of tumor size assessment, country of origin, and number of participants) were performed to aid in the interpretation of our results. Patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy also had worse overall survival and the difference approached statistical significance. Based on data from four studies, location of tumor relapse did not differ between the minimally invasive and open groups.

    Results in the Context of Published Literature

    Data on the oncologic safety of minimally invasive surgery for patients with cervical cancer and small tumors are heterogeneous and conflicting. A recent randomized trial did not find a higher relapse rate in the subgroup of patients with tumors,<2 cm, but it was not designed or powered to identify such a difference.4 In a retrospective study focusing exclusively on patients with tumors <2 cm, Chen et al reported better 5-year progression-free survival for patients who had open surgery (n=196, 97.7%) than for those who had minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (n=129, 90.4%), p=0.016.21 After controlling for confounders, laparoscopic approach was associated with worse disease-free survival (HR 4.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 17.06).21 Similarly, Uppal et al performed a multicenter retrospective study among institutions in the United States and Canada and reported inferior progression-free survival among 264 patients with tumors <2 cm who had minimally invasive surgery.10

    On the other hand, two recent analyses of large European nationwide databases did not find an increased risk of relapse for patients undergoing a minimally invasive approach. Alfonso et al examined the Swedish National Cancer Registry for patients with cervical carcinoma undergoing primary radical hysterectomy at high-volume centers and reported a 5-year progression-free survival rate of 92% in the open (n=150) and 91% in the robotic-assisted (n=460) group.30 Similarly, in an analysis of the Netherlands Cancer Registry that included 434 patients with tumors of <2 cm who underwent radical hysterectomy between 2010 and 2017, there was no difference in progression-free survival between the open and minimally invasive groups; with 5-year progression-free survival rates of 91.4% and 96.4%, respectively.9 Nevertheless, in both studies, survival was not controlled for important confounders, exclusively among patients with tumor size <2 cm. Another multicenter European retrospective study (SUCCOR) that recruited patients from 29 countries and 126 institutions, and controlled for important confounders did not find a significantly worse progression-free survival between the minimally invasive (n=126) and open (n=241) groups (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.40).20

    A critical point should be underlined; in several studies reported in the literature, patients who underwent open hysterectomy had significantly longer follow-up, while many studies do not control for confounders such as histology, presence of lymphovascular invasion, and post-operative treatment. A shorter follow-up can confound results since late relapses are not captured, while differences in overall survival are not evident. Similar to our results, in a recent analysis of the National Cancer Database, that included 2046 patients with cervical carcinoma and tumor size <2 cm who underwent minimally invasive (n=1195) or open (n=851) radical hysterectomy, those who had a minimally invasive approach had a worse overall survival (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.82) after controlling for confounders.31 However, that study was limited by the lack of central pathology review, data on surgeon’s experience, and cause of death.

    The etiology of increased relapse among those receiving minimally invasive surgery is a matter of debate. One theory is that use of an uterine manipulator may be associated with intraperitoneal spread of cancer cells. In a recent multi-institutional study, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without the use of an uterine manipulator had similar rate of relapse to those who had an open surgery (HR 1.58; 95% CI 0.79 to 3.15; p=0.20), while within the minimally invasive surgery group use of a uterine manipulator was associated with higher relapse rate.20 However, in an analysis of 224 patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at two large Canadian centers, after controlling for confounders, use of a uterine manipulator was not associated with recurrence risk.32 Lack of appropriate surgical expertise may also contribute to worse oncologic outcomes. Chong et al reported the surgical and oncologic outcomes of 100 consecutive patients. With improving surgical experience, operating time and the peri-operative complication rate decreased, but overall and progression-free survival remained the same.33 Kim et al analyzed the learning curve of a single surgeon and reported poorer progression-free survival during the early phase of minimally invasive surgery.34

    We should underline that pre-operative tumor size assessment by physical examination and imaging is challenging.35 The majority of studies included in the present review, determined tumor size based on pathology report and, if not available, imaging or physical examination. Uppal et al reported significant discrepancies between pre-operative and pathologic tumor size; from 291 patients deemed as having no visible disease, 19.9% actually had tumors>2 cm on final pathology while 34.6% of 257 patients with tumors <2 cm based on pre-operative assessment had tumors >2 cm on final pathology.10 Thus selecting a specific tumor size cut-off point to establish the safety of a minimally invasive approach could be problematic. Nevertheless, a question that merits further investigation is whether a minimally invasive approach is safe for patients with documented microscopic tumors (stage IA2 disease) on physical examination and imaging, or no visible disease following cold knife cone. The number of patients with IA2 disease reported by retrospective studies is very small, while they have a baseline low relapse rate that would require a collaborative effort to obtain a considerable number of patients for a meaningful analysis. For patients who underwent conization and had no residual disease on pre-operative assessment, Uppal et al reported a relapse rate of 1.4% and 2.9% in the open (n=72) and minimally invasive (n=171) groups, p=0.48.10 Casarin et al also identified 186 stage IA1–IB1 patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and reported that pre-operative conization was associated with a lower risk of relapse (1.1% vs 16.1%, p<0.001) even for patients with stage IB1 disease (1.8% vs 17.2%, p=0.004).36 Further research, is warranted to investigate whether minimally invasive surgery could be considered for patients with microscopic tumors or no visible disease following cold knife cone.

    Strengths and Weaknesses

    A major strength of the present study is the inclusion of a large number of patients with tumor size <2 cm who underwent minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy. We performed a thorough review of the literature and a series of sensitivity analyses that can aid readers in the interpretation of our results, while the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. However, certain limitations should be mentioned. First, although all studies controlled for important confounders, post-operative treatment and surveillance might have varied. Only one study reported the performance of protective maneuvers to prevent tumor contamination, and thus its impact on relapse rate could not be assessed in a dedicated sub-analysis.20 Similarly, evaluation of relapse rate among patients with no residual disease following cone biopsy could not be performed since only two studies reported such an outcome.10 Moreover, not all studies provided the exact method of tumor size determination while some used a combination of imaging, physical examination, and pathology report. When imaging was used, authors did not clarify how many patients underwent an MRI versus other imaging modalities, such as CT or ultrasound, which may be less sensitive in tumor measurement. In addition, relapse rate in each study varied, probably secondary to patient risk factors, variation in surgical expertise, and post-operative adjuvant treatment. We opted to include studies that had a minimum of 24 months of follow-up in each arm, similar to a recent meta-analysis,6 though as previously discussed, follow-up might not have captured all relapses, especially in the minimally invasive hysterectomy groups. Lastly, we excluded studies that did not report any data on tumor size, since we could not request authors to individually collect additional data and re-analyze them. Thus some large retrospective studies did not meet our inclusion criteria.37 38 Also, only one of the included studies provided data on blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications and so we could not compare differences in peri-operative outcomes between the two groups. Since there was a possibility of some minor overlap between two studies,20 24 we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding serially each study, and our results did not change.

    Implications for Practice and Future Research

    Given the accumulating evidence demonstrating worse oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, and difficulty in accurately assessing tumor size pre-operatively, an open approach should be selected. An international effort to perform individual patient data meta-analysis with information on important confounders and post-operative treatment could aid in further elucidating outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for patients with microscopic or small tumors or no residual disease.

    Conclusions

    In this systematic review of literature and meta-analysis that compiled data from a large number of patients who underwent primary radical hysterectomy with tumor size <2 cm, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with worse progression-free survival.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    Ethics statements

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank Dr Brown, Dr Chiva, Dr Gil-Moreno, and Dr Wenzel for providing additional information from their published papers.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Sung H ,
      3. Ferlay J ,
      4. Siegel RL , et al
      . Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021. doi:doi:10.3322/caac.21660. [Epub ahead of print: 04 Feb 2021].pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33538338
    2. ↵
      2. Abu-Rustum NR ,
      3. Yashar CM ,
      4. Bean S , et al
      . NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020;18:660–6.doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.0027 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32502976
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      2. Melamed A ,
      3. Rauh-Hain JA ,
      4. Ramirez PT
      . Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: when adoption of a novel treatment precedes prospective, randomized evidence. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:3069–74.doi:10.1200/JCO.19.01164 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31560581
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      2. Ramirez PT ,
      3. Frumovitz M ,
      4. Pareja R , et al
      . Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–904.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1806395 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30380365
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Melamed A ,
      3. Margul DJ ,
      4. Chen L , et al
      . Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1905–14.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1804923 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30379613
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Nitecki R ,
      3. Ramirez PT ,
      4. Frumovitz M , et al
      . Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:1019–27.doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32525511
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Uppal S ,
      3. Spencer R
      . Modify or abandon: minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29:843–4.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2019-000574 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31155515
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      2. Greggi S ,
      3. Casella G ,
      4. Scala F , et al
      . Surgical management of early cervical cancer: when is laparoscopic appropriate? Curr Oncol Rep 2020;22:7. doi:10.1007/s11912-020-0876-1 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31989322
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Wenzel HHB ,
      3. Smolders RGV ,
      4. Beltman JJ , et al
      . Survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer after abdominal or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a nationwide cohort study and literature review. Eur J Cancer 2020;133:14–21.doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2020.04.006 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32422504
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Uppal S ,
      3. Gehrig PA ,
      4. Peng K , et al
      . Recurrence rates in patients with cervical cancer treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective review study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1030–40.doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03012 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32031867
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      2. Yang J ,
      3. Mead-Harvey C ,
      4. Polen-De C , et al
      . Survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer treated with open versus robotic radical hysterectomy: our surgical pathology interrogation. Gynecol Oncol 2020;159:373–80.doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.031 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32893029
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Paik ES ,
      3. Lim MC ,
      4. Kim M-H , et al
      . Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study (KGOG 1028). Gynecol Oncol 2019;154:547–53.doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.06.023 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31272738
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Nam J-H ,
      3. Park J-Y ,
      4. Kim D-Y , et al
      . Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol 2012;23:903–11.doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr360 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21841155
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Levine MD ,
      3. Brown J ,
      4. Crane EK , et al
      . Outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer incorporating 2018 FIGO staging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2021;28:S1553-4650(20)30352-6 doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.07.021 pmid:32730990
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      2. Kim SI ,
      3. Lee M ,
      4. Lee S , et al
      . Impact of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on survival outcome in patients with FIGO stage Ib cervical cancer: a matching study of two institutional hospitals in Korea. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:75–82.doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.07.019 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31383569
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Hu TWY ,
      3. Huang Y ,
      4. Li N , et al
      . Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study in China. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1143–50.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001340 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32571892
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      2. Gil-Moreno A ,
      3. Carbonell-Socias M ,
      4. Salicrú S , et al
      . Radical hysterectomy: efficacy and safety in the dawn of minimally invasive techniques. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:492–500.doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2018.06.007 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29908339
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. Doo DW ,
      3. Kirkland CT ,
      4. Griswold LH , et al
      . Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: results from a single high volume institution. Gynecol Oncol 2019;153:242–7.doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.03.001 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30850169
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Li P ,
      3. Chen L ,
      4. Ni Y , et al
      . Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study. J Gynecol Oncol 2021;32:e17. doi:10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33470062
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Chiva L ,
      3. Zanagnolo V ,
      4. Querleu D , et al
      . SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1269–77.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32788262
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      2. Chen X ,
      3. Zhao N ,
      4. Ye P , et al
      . Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:564–71.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2019-000994 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32276941
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      2. Chen C ,
      3. Liu P ,
      4. Ni Y , et al
      . Laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm: a case-matched control study. Int J Clin Oncol 2020;25:937–47.doi:10.1007/s10147-020-01630-z pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32062731
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Brandt B ,
      3. Sioulas V ,
      4. Basaran D , et al
      . Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2020;156:591–7.doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.038 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31918996
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Rodriguez J ,
      3. Rauh-Hain JA ,
      4. Saenz J , et al
      . Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31: 504–11.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002086 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33504547
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      2. Liberati A ,
      3. Altman DG ,
      4. Tetzlaff J , et al
      . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19622552
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      2. Wells GA SB ,
      3. O’Connell D ,
      4. Peterson J
      . The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non randomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa, Canada: Dept of Epidemiologyand Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 2014.
    27. ↵
      2. Patsopoulos NA ,
      3. Evangelou E ,
      4. Ioannidis JPA
      . Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. Int J Epidemiol 2008;37:1148–57.doi:10.1093/ije/dyn065 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18424475
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      2. Tierney JF ,
      3. Stewart LA ,
      4. Ghersi D , et al
      . Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007;8:16. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17555582
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration
      . Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program. Version 5.3. Copenhagen, 2014.
    30. ↵
      2. Alfonzo E ,
      3. Wallin E ,
      4. Ekdahl L , et al
      . No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer 2019;116:169–77.doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.016 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31200323
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Nasioudis D ,
      3. Albright BB ,
      4. Haggerty AF , et al
      . Survival following minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical carcinoma and tumor size ≤2 cm. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:317–8.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.044 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33129764
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. Nica A ,
      3. Kim SR ,
      4. Gien LT , et al
      . Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1864–70.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001816 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33037109
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      2. Chong GO ,
      3. Lee YH ,
      4. Lee HJ , et al
      . Comparison of the long-term oncological outcomes between the initial learning period of robotic and the experienced period of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:226–32.doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001172 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29303929
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      2. Kim S ,
      3. Min KJ ,
      4. Lee S , et al
      . Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Asian J Surg 2021;44:174–80.doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.05.006 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32467009
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      2. Salvo G ,
      3. Odetto D ,
      4. Saez Perrotta MC , et al
      . Measurement of tumor size in early cervical cancer: an ever-evolving paradigm. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1215–23.doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001436 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32636272
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      2. Casarin J ,
      3. Bogani G ,
      4. Papadia A , et al
      . Preoperative conization and risk of recurrence in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2021;28:117–23.doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.015 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32320800
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      2. Shah CA ,
      3. Beck T ,
      4. Liao JB , et al
      . Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28:e82. doi:10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e82 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29027400
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Cusimano MC ,
      3. Baxter NN ,
      4. Gien LT , et al
      . Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:619.e1–619.e24.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31288006
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @BenAlbrightMD

    • Contributors DN: Conceptualization; data curation; statistical analysis; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; visualization; writing - original draft; writing - review and editing. BBA: Data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; visualization; writing - original draft; writing - review and editing. SK, MM, RLG II, AFH, EMK: Investigation; methodology; writing - original draft; writing - review and editing. NL: Supervision; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing - original draft; writing - review and editing.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.