Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Total Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Radical Abdominal Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer in Singapore

Timothy Yong Kuei Lim, Krystal Koh Miao Lin, Wai Loong Wong, Ieera Madan Aggarwal, Philip Kwai Lam Yam, Timothy Yong Kuei Lim, Krystal Koh Miao Lin, Wai Loong Wong, Ieera Madan Aggarwal, Philip Kwai Lam Yam

Abstract

Introduction: The Wertheim's radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH) has been the traditional surgical approach for operable Stage IB cervical cancer in Singapore whereas total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) was introduced only in 2009. In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome between the two routes of surgery in our center.

Methods: This is a prospective study performed in a single large tertiary institution in Singapore. Inclusion criteria included surgically fit patients with early cervical cancer and no radiological evidence of regional or distant metastases.

Results: From November 2009 to December 2014, 51 TLRHs and 85 RAHs were performed. Median blood loss in the TLRH group was significantly lower than in the RAH group (300 vs. 500 mL; P = 0.002) as was median hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001). Operative time was significantly higher in the TLRH group (262 vs. 228 min; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bladder recovery. Intraoperative complications were encountered in 2 (3.9%) TLRH patients and 1 (1.2%) RAH patient. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 (5.9%) TLRH patients and 8 (9.4%) RAH patients. With a median follow-up of 117 (range 1.6-314.6) weeks in the TLRH group and 143.3 (range 0.4-304.7) weeks in the RAH group, 9 (17.6%) TLRH patients and 7 (8.2%) RAH patients had recurrence. There was no significant difference in the overall 3-year survival between the TLRH group and the RAH group for tumor size ≤2 cm (100.0% vs. 97.0%; P = 0.37). However, there was a trend toward lower survival for the TLRH group for tumor size >2 cm (61.9% vs. 85.4%; P = 0.06).

Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that with appropriate patient selection, TLRH can be a safe and effective procedure for the management of early cervical cancer in Singapore, especially in women with small tumors ≤2 cm but should be used with caution in women with larger tumors.

Keywords: Cervical cancer; laparoscopic surgery; radical hysterectomy; surgical outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan–Meier analysis for overall survival
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival for cervical tumor ≤2 cm
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival for cervical tumor >2 cm

References

    1. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Cervical Cancer. WHO Fact Sheet. [Last updated on 2019 Jan 24]. Available from: .
    1. Singapore Cancer Registry Annual Registry Report 2015. National Registry of Diseases Office, Singapore. [Last released 2017 Jun 19]. Available from: .
    1. Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Ballon SC. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: Surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:340–8.
    1. Pomel C, Atallah D, Le Bouedec G, Rouzier R, Morice P, Castaigne D, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:534–9.
    1. Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Moore K, Sonoda Y, Venkatraman E, Brown C, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: Pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:402–9.
    1. Nezhat F, Mahdavi A, Nagarsheth NP. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using harmonic shears. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:20–5.
    1. Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, Milam MR, Bevers MW, Brown J, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:96–102.
    1. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Ciravolo G, Volpi E, Uccella S, Rampinelli F, et al. Surgicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:502–6.
    1. Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Perone C, Vicario V. Feasibility, morbidity, and safety of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: Our experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:584–90.
    1. Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:176–80.
    1. Pellegrino A, Vizza E, Fruscio R, Villa A, Corrado G, Villa M, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with Ib1 stage cervical cancer: Analysis of surgical and oncological outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:98–103.
    1. Lee CL, Wu KY, Huang KG, Lee PS, Yen CF. Long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopically assisted radical hysterectomy in treating early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:165.e1-7.
    1. Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy – A randomised phase II trial: Perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG. 2010;117:746–51.
    1. Park NY, Chong GO, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS, et al. Oncologic results and surgical morbidity of laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in the treatment of FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: Long-term follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:355–62.
    1. Yan X, Li G, Shang H, Wang G, Han Y, Lin T, et al. Twelve-year experience with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120:362–7.
    1. Lim YK, Chia YN, Yam KL. Total laparoscopic Wertheim's radical hysterectomy versus Wertheim''s radical abdominal hysterectomy in the management of stage I cervical cancer in Singapore: A pilot study. Singapore Med J. 2013;54:683–8.
    1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–904.
    1. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–4.
    1. Diver E, Hinchcliff E, Gockley A, Melamed A, Contrino L, Feldman S, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and similar survival outcomes compared with laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:402–6.
    1. Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong GW, Zhang XW. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:1132–44.
    1. Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457–71.
    1. Ralph G, Winter R, Michelitsch L, Tamussino K. Radicality of parametrial resection and dysfunction of the lower urinary tract after radical hysterectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1991;12:27–30.
    1. Zanoio L, Albiero A, Divirgilio G. Radical hysterectomy.Operative complications. Minerva Ginecol. 1993;45:591–6.
    1. Nam JH, Kim JH, Kim DY, Kim MK, Yoo HJ, Kim YM, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopico-vaginal radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92:277–83.
    1. Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, Kim YI, Lee M, Kim HS, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 pii: S0090-8258 (19) 30041-1.
    1. Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: Long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:903–11.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe