Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study.

Published

Journal Article

PURPOSE: To compare the disease-free survival (DFS) between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomies (RH) performed in academic medical institutions. METHODS: Retrospective multi-institutional review of patients undergoing RH for stage IA1 (with lymphovascular invasion), IA2, and IB1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: Of 815 patients, open RH was performed in 255 cases (29.1%) and minimally invasive RH in 560 cases (70.9%). There were 19 (7.5%) recurrences in the open RH and 51 (9.1%) recurrences in the minimally invasive group (P = .43). Risk-adjusted analysis revealed that minimally invasive RH was independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.25). Other factors independently associated with an increased hazard of recurrence included tumor size, grade, and adjuvant radiation. Conization before surgery was associated with lower recurrence risk (aHR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.71). There was no difference in OS in the unadjusted analysis (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.11) or after risk adjustment (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.2). Of 264 patients with tumors ≤ 2 cm on final pathology (excluding those with no residual tumor on final pathology), 2/82 (2.4%) recurred in the open RH group and 16/182 (8.8%) in the minimally invasive RH group (P = .058). In propensity score matching analysis, 7/159 (4.4%) recurrences were noted in the open RH group and 18/156 (11.5%) in the minimally invasive RH group (P = .019). Survival analysis revealed an increased risk of recurrence in the minimally invasive group in propensity-matched cohort (HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.18). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective series, patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, including those with tumor size ≤ 2 cm on final pathology, had inferior DFS but not overall survival in the entire cohort.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Uppal, S; Gehrig, PA; Peng, K; Bixel, KL; Matsuo, K; Vetter, MH; Davidson, BA; Cisa, MP; Lees, BF; Brunette, LL; Tucker, K; Stuart Staley, A; Gotlieb, WH; Holloway, RW; Essel, KG; Holman, LL; Goldfeld, E; Olawaiye, A; Rose, SL

Published Date

  • April 1, 2020

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 38 / 10

Start / End Page

  • 1030 - 1040

PubMed ID

  • 32031867

Pubmed Central ID

  • 32031867

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1527-7755

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1200/JCO.19.03012

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States