Cargando…

Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes

This study compared survival outcomes for patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 2009) cervical cancer who underwent open radical hysterectomy (ORH) versus those who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) using vaginal colpotomy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Eun Jung, Kim, Nae Ry, Lee, A. Jin, Shim, Seung-Hyuk, Lee, Sun Joo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8878615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35212297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028911
_version_ 1784658701200654336
author Yang, Eun Jung
Kim, Nae Ry
Lee, A. Jin
Shim, Seung-Hyuk
Lee, Sun Joo
author_facet Yang, Eun Jung
Kim, Nae Ry
Lee, A. Jin
Shim, Seung-Hyuk
Lee, Sun Joo
author_sort Yang, Eun Jung
collection PubMed
description This study compared survival outcomes for patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 2009) cervical cancer who underwent open radical hysterectomy (ORH) versus those who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) using vaginal colpotomy (VC). Data for 550 patients who were diagnosed with cervical cancer at our institution during the period August 2005 to September 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 116 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) were selected after applying the exclusion criteria. All MIRH patients underwent VC. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes between the ORH and MIRH groups were compared using appropriate statistical testing. Ninety one patients were treated with ORH and 25 with MIRH during the study period. Among the MIRH patients, 18 underwent laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and 7 underwent laparoscopic RH. Preoperative conization was performed more frequently in MIRH patients than in ORH patients (44% vs 22%, respectively, P = .028). The incidence of lymph node invasion was higher in the ORH group than in MIRH group (37.4% vs 12.0% respectively; P = .016). Following RH, ORH patients underwent adjuvant treatment more frequently than MIRH patients (71.4% vs 56.0%, respectively, P = .002). There were no significant differences between ORH and MIRH patients for either progression-free survival (PFS) (91.3% vs 78.7%, respectively; P = .220) or 5-year overall survival (OS) (96.6% vs 94.7%, respectively, P = .929). In univariate analysis, lympho-vascular space invasion was the only clinicopathological feature associated with decreased PFS. No other clinicopathological factors was significantly associated with PFS or OS in univariate and multivariate analyses. Despite a higher incidence of unfavorable prognostic factors in ORH patients, their survival outcomes were not different to those of MIRH patients with VC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8878615
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88786152022-02-28 Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes Yang, Eun Jung Kim, Nae Ry Lee, A. Jin Shim, Seung-Hyuk Lee, Sun Joo Medicine (Baltimore) 5700 This study compared survival outcomes for patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 2009) cervical cancer who underwent open radical hysterectomy (ORH) versus those who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) using vaginal colpotomy (VC). Data for 550 patients who were diagnosed with cervical cancer at our institution during the period August 2005 to September 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 116 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy (RH) were selected after applying the exclusion criteria. All MIRH patients underwent VC. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes between the ORH and MIRH groups were compared using appropriate statistical testing. Ninety one patients were treated with ORH and 25 with MIRH during the study period. Among the MIRH patients, 18 underwent laparoscopy-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and 7 underwent laparoscopic RH. Preoperative conization was performed more frequently in MIRH patients than in ORH patients (44% vs 22%, respectively, P = .028). The incidence of lymph node invasion was higher in the ORH group than in MIRH group (37.4% vs 12.0% respectively; P = .016). Following RH, ORH patients underwent adjuvant treatment more frequently than MIRH patients (71.4% vs 56.0%, respectively, P = .002). There were no significant differences between ORH and MIRH patients for either progression-free survival (PFS) (91.3% vs 78.7%, respectively; P = .220) or 5-year overall survival (OS) (96.6% vs 94.7%, respectively, P = .929). In univariate analysis, lympho-vascular space invasion was the only clinicopathological feature associated with decreased PFS. No other clinicopathological factors was significantly associated with PFS or OS in univariate and multivariate analyses. Despite a higher incidence of unfavorable prognostic factors in ORH patients, their survival outcomes were not different to those of MIRH patients with VC. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8878615/ /pubmed/35212297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028911 Text en Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle 5700
Yang, Eun Jung
Kim, Nae Ry
Lee, A. Jin
Shim, Seung-Hyuk
Lee, Sun Joo
Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title_full Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title_fullStr Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title_short Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes
title_sort laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage ib1 to iia2 cervical cancer: survival outcomes
topic 5700
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8878615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35212297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028911
work_keys_str_mv AT yangeunjung laparotomicradicalhysterectomyversusminimallyinvasiveradicalhysterectomyusingvaginalcolpotomyforthemanagementofstageib1toiia2cervicalcancersurvivaloutcomes
AT kimnaery laparotomicradicalhysterectomyversusminimallyinvasiveradicalhysterectomyusingvaginalcolpotomyforthemanagementofstageib1toiia2cervicalcancersurvivaloutcomes
AT leeajin laparotomicradicalhysterectomyversusminimallyinvasiveradicalhysterectomyusingvaginalcolpotomyforthemanagementofstageib1toiia2cervicalcancersurvivaloutcomes
AT shimseunghyuk laparotomicradicalhysterectomyversusminimallyinvasiveradicalhysterectomyusingvaginalcolpotomyforthemanagementofstageib1toiia2cervicalcancersurvivaloutcomes
AT leesunjoo laparotomicradicalhysterectomyversusminimallyinvasiveradicalhysterectomyusingvaginalcolpotomyforthemanagementofstageib1toiia2cervicalcancersurvivaloutcomes