Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study.


Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2022
Historique:
received: 06 05 2021
revised: 11 08 2021
accepted: 14 08 2021
pubmed: 31 8 2021
medline: 15 2 2022
entrez: 30 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005-2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental.
RESULTS
Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20-42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18-45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0-31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8-40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20-16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02-11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6-97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6-95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6-99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0-99.8) for minimally invasive surgery.
CONCLUSION
The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34461074
pii: S0002-9378(21)00963-7
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.029
pmc: PMC9518841
mid: NIHMS1736399
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

97.e1-97.e16

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 May;220(5):469.e1-469.e13
pubmed: 30802438
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Apr;157(1):173-180
pubmed: 31982179
Stat Med. 1999 Mar 30;18(6):695-706
pubmed: 10204198
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 1;38(10):1030-1040
pubmed: 32031867
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1019-1027
pubmed: 32525511
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1905-1914
pubmed: 30379613
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;136(3):533-542
pubmed: 32769648
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):635-638
pubmed: 30765489
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904
pubmed: 30380365

Auteurs

Gloria Salvo (G)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: GSalvo@mdandeson.org.

Pedro T Ramirez (PT)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Mario M Leitao (MM)

Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

David Cibula (D)

Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Xiaohua Wu (X)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.

Henrik Falconer (H)

Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Jan Persson (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University Lund, Sweden.

Myriam Perrotta (M)

Servicio de Ginecología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Berit J Mosgaard (BJ)

Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ali Kucukmetin (A)

Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, United Kingdom.

Igor Berlev (I)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Gabriel Rendon (G)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto de Cancerología Las Américas Auna, Medellín, Colombia.

Kaijiang Liu (K)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Marcelo Vieira (M)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil.

Mihai E Capilna (ME)

First Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureş, Târgu Mureş, Romania.

Christina Fotopoulou (C)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Glauco Baiocchi (G)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil.

Dilyara Kaidarova (D)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Reitan Ribeiro (R)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil.

Silvana Pedra-Nobre (S)

Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Roman Kocian (R)

Gynecologic Oncology Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.

Xiaoqi Li (X)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.

Jin Li (J)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.

Kolbrún Pálsdóttir (K)

Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Florencia Noll (F)

Servicio de Ginecología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Stuart Rundle (S)

Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, United Kingdom.

Elena Ulrikh (E)

Almazov National Medical Research Centre, North-Western State Medical University named after I. I. Mechnikov, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Zhijun Hu (Z)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

Mihai Gheorghe (M)

First Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureş, Târgu Mureş, Romania.

Srdjan Saso (S)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London and West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Raikhan Bolatbekova (R)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Audrey Tsunoda (A)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Erasto Gaertner, Curitiba, Brazil; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Pilar Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil.

Brandelyn Pitcher (B)

Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Jimin Wu (J)

Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Diana Urbauer (D)

Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Rene Pareja (R)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Astorga Clínica de Oncología, Medellín, Colombia; Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH