Introduction/Background In recent years, evidence has suggested that patients with cervical cancer (CC) treated with minimally invasive surgery have an increased risk of recurrence and are more likely to develop peritoneal recurrences compared to those undergoing open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to compare the pattern of recurrence of CC treated with minimally-invasive vs. open abdominal surgery.

Methodology We retrospectively identified CC patients who underwent surgical treatment at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan from January 2010 to December 2021. Patients with FIGO 2018 stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2, IB1 and IB2 at diagnosis were included. All patients underwent either minimally-invasive robotic-assisted (MIRH) or open abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and pelvic bilateral lymphadenectomy. We compared the two groups and evaluated the pattern of recurrence.

Results In total, 413 patients meeting inclusion criteria were identified: 231 (55,9%) undergoing MIRH and 182 (44,1%) undergoing ARH. We observed a statistically significative difference (p<0,001) between the two populations in terms of previous conization, stage at final histology, grade, tumor size, and adjuvant treatment. Overall, 43 (10,4%) patients experienced a recurrence, including 18 (7,8%) in the MIRH group and 25 (13,7%) in the ARH group. The median time of recurrence was 18,3 months (IQR 10,5–28,8), and the median time of follow-up of the patients with no recurrence was 71,7 months (IQR 37,1–99,1). There was no significant difference in the pattern of recurrence between the two groups, with only 1 (6%) patient in the MIRH group experiencing a peritoneal recurrence.

Conclusion In contrast to previous studies, in our population we observed no significant difference in the pattern of recurrence of CC following ARH or MIRH. This result that may be attributed to the selection criteria used for the surgical approach.

Disclosures None.