RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Recurrence of Early Stage Cervical Cancer After Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Surgery
JF International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer
JO Int J Gynecol Cancer
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP 547
OP 552
DO 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000627
VO 26
IS 3
A1 Laterza, Rosa Maria
A1 Uccella, Stefano
A1 Casarin, Jvan
A1 Morosi, Chiara
A1 Serati, Maurizio
A1 Koelbl, Heinz
A1 Ghezzi, Fabio
YR 2016
UL http://ijgc.bmj.com/content/26/3/547.abstract
AB Objective The aim of the study was to compare site and time to recurrence in patients affected by early stage cervical cancer (CC) treated with laparoscopy radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).Methods This retrospective study was conducted in a university teaching, tertiary referral center hospital. We included patients undergoing either LRH or open ARH to treat CC.Results One hundred fifty patients were included, 82 submitted to LRH and 68 submitted to ARH. Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable, except for body mass index higher in ARH group. Patients undergoing LRH experienced less blood loss (100 vs 400 mL, P < 0.0001), less lymph nodes removed (20 vs 31, P = 0.001), and shorter recovery (4 vs 8 days, P = 0.0005) in comparison with the ARH group. No significant differences were found regarding recurrence rate (9 vs 13, P = 0.17) and time to recurrence (8 vs 17 months, P = 0.066) between LRH and ARH group.Sites of recurrence were also comparable between the 2 groups: 2/9 versus 2/13 (P = 1) local recurrence, 4/9 versus 8/13 (P = 0.66) pelvic recurrence, 4/9 versus 7/13 (P = 1) distant recurrence in LRH and ARH groups, respectively. The most frequent sites of recurrence were pelvic and distant (44.4%) in LRH group and pelvic (61.5%) in ARH group.Conclusions Our data demonstrate that early stage CC can be treated with LRH with similar recurrence rates and patterns in comparison with ARH, reassuring its continuing clinical use.