Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China

Xiaopei Chao, Lei Li, Ming Wu, Shuiqing Ma, Xianjie Tan, Sen Zhong, Jinghe Lang, Aoshuang Cheng, Wenhui Li, Xiaopei Chao, Lei Li, Ming Wu, Shuiqing Ma, Xianjie Tan, Sen Zhong, Jinghe Lang, Aoshuang Cheng, Wenhui Li

Abstract

Introduction: In the last three decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for radical hysterectomy (RH) has become a popular treatment option for early-stage cervical cancer. However, a recently published randomised controlled trial (LACC trial) and an epidemiological study in the USA revealed strong evidence against the survival advantage of MIS for RH. However, the influencing factors of research centres and the learning curves of surgeons in these studies lacked sufficient evaluation. The efficacy of different surgical approaches for early-stage cervical cancer in the clinical and survival outcomes remains to be validated.

Methods and analysis: Patients diagnosed with FIGO (2009) stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer with histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma will be recruited in this multicentre randomised controlled study. Patients will be randomly assigned to undergo MIS (robot-assisted or laparoscopic RH) or abdominal RH. Within 2 years, 1448 patients in 28 centres in China will be recruited to meet the criteria of a non-inferiority threshold of HR of 1.6 with bilateral nominal α <0.05 and power of 0.8. All surgeries will be performed by the indicated experienced surgeons. At least 100 RH cases in the individual past one decade of practice will be analysed as proof of learning curves. The primary objective of this study is 5-year disease-free survival. The secondary objectives include the overall survival rate, progression-free survival rate, disease-free survival rate, cost-effectiveness and quality of life.

Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital and is filed on record by all other centres. Written informed consent will be obtained from all eligible participants before enrolment. The results will be disseminated through community events, academic conferences, student theses and peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03739944.

Keywords: abdominal surgery; cervical cancer; disease-free survival; laparoscopy; learning curve; radical hysterectomy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram of the study. ARH, abdominal radical hysterectomy. MIS, minimally invasive surgery.

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69–90. 10.3322/caac.20107
    1. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. . Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:115–32. 10.3322/caac.21338
    1. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). cervical cancer. version 2.2019, 2018. Available:
    1. Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, et al. . Cervical cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017;28(Suppl 4):iv72–83. 10.1093/annonc/mdx220
    1. Wang Y-zhou, Deng L, Xu H-cheng, et al. . Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer 2015;15:928 10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4
    1. Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, et al. . Prognostic and safety roles in laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2015;25:990–8. 10.1089/lap.2015.0390
    1. Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, et al. . Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:96–102. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000268798.75353.04
    1. Shazly SAM, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, et al. . Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2015;138:457–71. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009
    1. Lee E-J, Kang H, Kim D-H. A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;156:83–6. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.016
    1. Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, et al. . Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1316–23. 10.1245/s10434-009-0342-7
    1. Nam J-H, Park J-Y, Kim D-Y, 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. 10.1093/annonc/mdr360
    1. Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, et al. . Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016;42:513–22. 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.12.014
    1. Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, et al. . Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28:e82 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e82
    1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. . Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed 2018;379:1895–904. 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
    1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. . Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–904. 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
    1. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. . Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1905–14. 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923
    1. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, et al. . Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:655–64. discussion 662-4 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318155a762
    1. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, et al. . A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1324–32. 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
    1. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. . Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:695–700. 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8645
    1. Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, et al. . Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:1224–33. 10.1001/jama.2017.2068
    1. Wright JD, Burke WM, Tergas AI, et al. . Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:1087–96. 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.3212
    1. Conrad LB, Ramirez PT, Burke W, et al. . Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: an updated survey of members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015;25:1121–7. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000450
    1. Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, et al. . Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer: comparison of the first 50 and second 50 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19:1459–64. 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181b76640
    1. Reade C, Hauspy J, Schmuck M-L, et al. . Characterizing the learning curve for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: buddy operating as a technique for accelerating skill acquisition. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2011;21:930–5. 10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182157a44
    1. Kong T-W, Chang S-J, Paek J, et al. . Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for gynecologic oncologists without open counterpart experience. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2015;58:377–84. 10.5468/ogs.2015.58.5.377
    1. Hwang JH, Yoo HJ, Joo J, et al. . Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection in early cervical cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;163:219–23. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.05.005
    1. Pergialiotis V, Rodolakis A, Christakis D, et al. . Laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy: systematic review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:745–53. 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.021
    1. Ruckdeschel JC, Finkelstein DM, Ettinger DS, et al. . A randomized trial of the four most active regimens for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:14–22. 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.1.14
    1. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:297–303. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3
    1. Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Benedetti-Panici P, et al. . New classification system of radical hysterectomy: emphasis on a three-dimensional anatomic template for parametrial resection. Gynecol Oncol 2011;122:264–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.029
    1. James S. Approximate multinormal probabilities applied to correlated multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med 1991;10:1123–35. 10.1002/sim.4780100712
    1. RCPA Cervical cancer structured reporting protocol (1st edition 2013), 2013. Available:
    1. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:107–8. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.009
    1. Greimel ER, Kuljanic Vlasic K, Waldenstrom A-C, et al. . The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life questionnaire cervical cancer module: EORTC QLQ-CX24. Cancer 2006;107:1812–22. 10.1002/cncr.22217
    1. Hua C-H, Guo H-M, Guan X-L, et al. . Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cervical cancer module for Chinese patients with cervical cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence 2013;7:1061–6. 10.2147/PPA.S52498
    1. ter Kuile MM, Brauer M, Laan E. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS): psychometric properties within a Dutch population. J Sex Marital Ther 2006;32:289–304. 10.1080/00926230600666261
    1. Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, et al. . Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:795–806. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602
    1. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al. . A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:584–8. 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.013
    1. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03. Available:
    1. Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, et al. . Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:685–93. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ee6e4d
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. . CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340 10.1136/bmj.c332

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する