Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
Adenocarcinoma
/ pathology
Adult
Aged
Carcinoma, Adenosquamous
/ pathology
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell
/ pathology
Cost of Illness
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Health Status
Humans
Hysterectomy
/ adverse effects
Mental Health
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
Neoplasm Staging
Quality of Life
Surveys and Questionnaires
Time Factors
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ pathology
Young Adult
Journal
The Lancet. Oncology
ISSN: 1474-5488
Titre abrégé: Lancet Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100957246
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
18
11
2019
revised:
31
01
2020
accepted:
03
02
2020
entrez:
6
6
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
21
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the phase 3 LACC trial and a subsequent population-level review, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was shown to be associated with worse disease-free survival and higher recurrence rates than was open radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Here, we report the results of a secondary endpoint, quality of life, of the LACC trial. The LACC trial was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 33 centres worldwide. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2, or IB1 adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who were scheduled to have a type 2 or 3 radical hysterectomy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Randomisation was done centrally using a computerised minimisation program, stratified by centre, disease stage according to FIGO guidelines, and age. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of the LACC trial was disease-free survival at 4·5 years, and quality of life was a secondary endpoint. Eligible patients completed validated quality-of-life and symptom assessments (12-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervical [FACT-Cx], EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]) before surgery and at 1 and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery (FACT-Cx was also completed at additional timepoints up to 54 months after surgery). Differences in quality of life over time between treatment groups were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who had surgery and completed at least one baseline (pretreatment) and one follow-up (at any timepoint after surgery) questionnaire, using generalised estimating equations. The LACC trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00614211. Between Jan 31, 2008, and June 22, 2017, 631 patients were enrolled; 312 assigned to the open surgery group and 319 assigned to the minimally invasive surgery group. 496 (79%) of 631 patients had surgery completed at least one baseline and one follow-up quality-of-life survey and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients in the open surgery group and 252 [79%] of 319 participants in the minimally invasive surgery group). Median follow-up was 3·0 years (IQR 1·7-4·5). At baseline, no differences in the mean FACT-Cx total score were identified between the open surgery (129·3 [SD 18·8]) and minimally invasive surgery groups (129·8 [19·8]). No differences in mean FACT-Cx total scores were identified between the groups 6 weeks after surgery (128·7 [SD 19·9] in the open surgery group vs 130·0 [19·8] in the minimally invasive surgery group) or 3 months after surgery (132·0 [21·7] vs 133·0 [22·1]). Since recurrence rates are higher and disease-free survival is lower for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than for open surgery, and postoperative quality of life is similar between the treatment groups, gynaecological oncologists should recommend open radical hysterectomy for patients with early stage cervical cancer. MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the phase 3 LACC trial and a subsequent population-level review, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was shown to be associated with worse disease-free survival and higher recurrence rates than was open radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Here, we report the results of a secondary endpoint, quality of life, of the LACC trial.
METHODS
The LACC trial was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 33 centres worldwide. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2, or IB1 adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who were scheduled to have a type 2 or 3 radical hysterectomy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Randomisation was done centrally using a computerised minimisation program, stratified by centre, disease stage according to FIGO guidelines, and age. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of the LACC trial was disease-free survival at 4·5 years, and quality of life was a secondary endpoint. Eligible patients completed validated quality-of-life and symptom assessments (12-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervical [FACT-Cx], EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]) before surgery and at 1 and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery (FACT-Cx was also completed at additional timepoints up to 54 months after surgery). Differences in quality of life over time between treatment groups were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who had surgery and completed at least one baseline (pretreatment) and one follow-up (at any timepoint after surgery) questionnaire, using generalised estimating equations. The LACC trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00614211.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 31, 2008, and June 22, 2017, 631 patients were enrolled; 312 assigned to the open surgery group and 319 assigned to the minimally invasive surgery group. 496 (79%) of 631 patients had surgery completed at least one baseline and one follow-up quality-of-life survey and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients in the open surgery group and 252 [79%] of 319 participants in the minimally invasive surgery group). Median follow-up was 3·0 years (IQR 1·7-4·5). At baseline, no differences in the mean FACT-Cx total score were identified between the open surgery (129·3 [SD 18·8]) and minimally invasive surgery groups (129·8 [19·8]). No differences in mean FACT-Cx total scores were identified between the groups 6 weeks after surgery (128·7 [SD 19·9] in the open surgery group vs 130·0 [19·8] in the minimally invasive surgery group) or 3 months after surgery (132·0 [21·7] vs 133·0 [22·1]).
INTERPRETATION
Since recurrence rates are higher and disease-free survival is lower for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than for open surgery, and postoperative quality of life is similar between the treatment groups, gynaecological oncologists should recommend open radical hysterectomy for patients with early stage cervical cancer.
FUNDING
MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32502445
pii: S1470-2045(20)30081-4
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4
pmc: PMC9762514
mid: NIHMS1850351
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00614211']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Comparative Study
Equivalence Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
851-860Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
pubmed: 8628042
Cancer. 2000 Oct 1;89(7):1634-46
pubmed: 11013380
JAMA Surg. 2017 Mar 1;152(3):292-298
pubmed: 28097305
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Apr;42(4):513-22
pubmed: 26843445
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 May;73(2):177-83
pubmed: 10329031
J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jul;29(4):e75
pubmed: 29770634
BMJ. 2011 Feb 07;342:d40
pubmed: 21300711
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;222(3):249.e1-249.e10
pubmed: 31586602
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904
pubmed: 30380365
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Aug;11(8):772-80
pubmed: 20638899
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(36):e4787
pubmed: 27603383
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5337-42
pubmed: 19805678
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Sep;117(1):99-109
pubmed: 18925434
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Jun;28(5):1020-1028
pubmed: 29727351
Ann Oncol. 2012 Apr;23(4):903-11
pubmed: 21841155
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;26(9):2985-2993
pubmed: 31228131
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jan 15;21(2):366-73
pubmed: 12525531
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Sep;154(3):547-553
pubmed: 31272738
J Support Oncol. 2005 Mar-Apr;3(2):133-4
pubmed: 15796445
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1905-1914
pubmed: 30379613
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Apr;133(1):23-7
pubmed: 24680587
COPD. 2005 Mar;2(1):57-62
pubmed: 17136963
JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):321-8
pubmed: 11790211
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 May;29(4):651-668
pubmed: 30877144
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;132(2):281-290
pubmed: 29995737
Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1887-92
pubmed: 22552194
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7428-36
pubmed: 16234510
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Dec;48(12):2217-23
pubmed: 16228828
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019 Jul;34(7):1211-1220
pubmed: 31102008
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 May;153(2):242-247
pubmed: 30850169
J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):570-9
pubmed: 8445433
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;221(6):619.e1-619.e24
pubmed: 31288006
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Apr;153(1):3-12
pubmed: 30642625