Article Text

Download PDFPDF

445 Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy. MIS vs Open Approach. Systematic review and Meta- analysis
  1. N Manzour1,
  2. F Boria1,
  3. E Chacon1,
  4. J Nuñez2,
  5. N Martín-Calvo2,
  6. JÁ Mínguez1,
  7. D Vazquez1,
  8. T Castellano1,
  9. J Vara1,
  10. I Brotons1,
  11. JM Aramendia3,
  12. A Gonzalez-Martin3,
  13. D Salas3,
  14. L Sánchez Lorenzo3,
  15. LM Chiva1 and
  16. JL Alcazar1
  1. 1Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Gynecology, Spain
  2. 2Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Spain
  3. 3Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Medical Oncology


Introduction/Background*After the LACC trial, SUCCOR study and other studies, we know that patients who have undergone Minimally Invasive Surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today we really don’t know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We would try to evaluate the pattern of relapse in patients with cervical cancer Ib1 FIGO 2009 who underwent radical hysterectomy with different surgical approaches.

Methodology Systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of science with terms like ‘pattern relapse cervical cancer,’ ‘pattern recurrence cervical cancer,’ ‘Open vs. Laparoscopic cervical cancer relapse.’ Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies to different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with Ib1 cervical cancer. For the quantitative analysis, the pool odds ratio of the recurrence localization was calculated. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Result(s)*The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After the exclusion, nine articles that met all the inclusion criteria were included, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer IB1, the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. Total patients who underwent open radical hysterectomy were 809 (48.6%) with 75 relapses, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery were 854 (51.4%) and 105 relapses. When we compered the pattern of relapse local, Distant and Both of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences (OD 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602- 1.541; p=0.898), (OD 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467- 1.330; p= 0.542) and (CI 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331- 1.407; p=0.630) respectively.

Conclusion*There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment.

Statistics from

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.