A multicenter noninferior randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2): study protocol of the LAUNCH 1 trial

Xin Wu, Hao Feng, Shujun Gao, Hua Feng, Wenjing Diao, Hongwei Zhang, Ming Du, Weihua Lou, Xipeng Wang, Tao Zhu, Yuyang Zhang, Weiguo Hu, Xiaohong Xue, Zhiling Zhu, Libing Xiang, Jiarui Li, Xuhong Fang, Yongrui Bai, Yanli Hou, Weili Yan, Ling Qiu, Hailin Yu, Shurong Zhu, Yan Du, Hua Jiang, Xin Wu, Hao Feng, Shujun Gao, Hua Feng, Wenjing Diao, Hongwei Zhang, Ming Du, Weihua Lou, Xipeng Wang, Tao Zhu, Yuyang Zhang, Weiguo Hu, Xiaohong Xue, Zhiling Zhu, Libing Xiang, Jiarui Li, Xuhong Fang, Yongrui Bai, Yanli Hou, Weili Yan, Ling Qiu, Hailin Yu, Shurong Zhu, Yan Du, Hua Jiang

Abstract

Background: A retrospective study and a randomized controlled trial published in a high quality journal in late 2018 have shown that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RH) was associated with worse survival than abdominal RH among patients with early stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer has been a classic landmark surgery in gynecology, therefore this conclusion is pivotal. The current trial is designed to reconfirm whether there is a difference between laparoscopic RH and abdominal RH in cervical cancer (stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2) patient survival under stringent operation standards and consistent tumor-free technique. This paper reports the rationale, design, and implementation of the trial.

Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. A total of 690 patients with stage IA1 (with intravascular), and IA2 cervical cancer will be enrolled over a period of three years. Patients are randomized (1:1) to either the laparoscopic RH or the abdominal RH group. Patients will then be followed-up for at least five years. The primary endpoint will be 5-year progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints will include 5-year overall survival rates, recurrence rates, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, surgery-related complications, and quality of life.

Discussion: The results of the trial will provide valuable evidence for guiding clinical decision of choosing appropriate treatment strategies for stage IA1 (LVSI) and stage IA2 cervical cancer patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04934982 , Registered on 22 June 2021).

Keywords: Abdominal radical hysterectomy; Cervical cancer; Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy; Overall survival; Prognosis; Progression-free survival; Stage IA1 with LVSI and IA2.

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest to disclose.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
    1. Cibula D, Potter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie Meder C, et al. The European society of gynaecological oncology/European society for radiotherapy and oncology/European society of pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:641–655. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001216.
    1. Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:265–272.
    1. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297–303. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3.
    1. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;8:CD003677.
    1. Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Serati M, Casarin J, Pinelli C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:857–862. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.018.
    1. Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Khurshid N, Phibbs G, Manahan KJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:438–442. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181cf5c2c.
    1. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011.
    1. Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:903–911. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr360.
    1. Roque DR, Wysham WZ, Soper JT. The surgical management of cervical cancer: an overview and literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69:426–441. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000089.
    1. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1905–1914. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923.
    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;379:1895–1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–207. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, Chan AW, King MT, et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA. 2018;319:483–494. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21903.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe