Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

Xiaopei Chao, Ming Wu, Shuiqing Ma, Xianjie Tan, Sen Zhong, Xiaochen Song, Lei Li, Xiaopei Chao, Ming Wu, Shuiqing Ma, Xianjie Tan, Sen Zhong, Xiaochen Song, Lei Li

Abstract

Introduction: Recent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the potential reasons are unclear.

Methods and analysis: Each expert from 28 study centres participating in a previously reported randomised controlled trial (NCT03739944) will provide successive eligible records of at least 100 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. Inclusion criteria consist of a definite pathological evaluation of stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 and IB1 according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system and a histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma. The primary endpoint is 5-year disease-free survival between the MIRH and ARH groups. The secondary endpoints include the MIRH learning curves of participating surgeons, 5-year overall survival between the MIRH and ARH groups, survival outcomes according to surgical chronology, surgical outcomes and sites of recurrence and potential risk factors that affect survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis in patients with tumour diameter less than 2 cm will follow the similar flow diagram.

Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (registration no. JS-1711), and is also filed on record by all other 27 centres. The results will be disseminated through community events and peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03738969.

Keywords: adult surgery; gynaecological oncology; minimally invasive surgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study. ARH, abdominal RH; DFS, disease-free survival. MIRH, minimally invasive RH; OS, overall survival. RH, radical hysterectomy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Judgement of learning curves of the study. Patients with MIRH will be divided into subgroups of first 30 cases, second 30 cases and and others. The 5-year DFS of these subgroup of patients with MIRH will be compared with the DFS of patients with ARH to explore the potential differences. The 5-year DFS of subgroup of patients with MIRH will also be compared with the DFS of first 30 patients with MIRH to find out the potential plateau of DFS. ARH, abdominal radical hysterectomy. DFS, disease-free survival. MIRH, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. . 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. 10.3322/caac.21492
    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. Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer 2018 (English version). Chin J Cancer Res 2019;31:295–305. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.02.04
    1. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Cervical cancer version 1, 2020. 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:iv72–83. 10.1093/annonc/mdx220
    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. 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. 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. Guo J, Yang L, Cai J, et al. . Laparoscopic procedure compared with open radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer: a retrospective study. Onco Targets Ther 2018;11:5903–8. 10.2147/OTT.S156064
    1. Jin Y-M, Liu S-S, Chen J, et al. . Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. PLoS One 2018;13:e0193033. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193033
    1. Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, et al. . Robot-Assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4:CD011422. 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2
    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. Ditto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, et al. . Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:34–9. 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.058
    1. Mendivil AA, Rettenmaier MA, Abaid LN, et al. . Survival rate comparisons amongst cervical cancer patients treated with an open, robotic-assisted or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a five year experience. Surg Oncol 2016;25:66–71. 10.1016/j.suronc.2015.09.004
    1. Zeng YC, Ching SSY, Loke AY. Quality of life measurement in women with cervical cancer: implications for Chinese cervical cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:30. 10.1186/1477-7525-8-30
    1. Gallotta V, Conte C, Federico A, et al. . Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: a case matched control study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44:754–9. 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.092
    1. Corrado G, Vizza E, Legge F, et al. . Comparison of different surgical approaches for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients: a Multi-institution study and a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:1020–8. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001254
    1. Gallotta V, Conte C, D'Indinosante M, et al. . Robotic surgery in elderly and very elderly gynecologic cancer patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:872–7. 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.007
    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. Athanasios F, Afrodite N, Effstratios P, et al. . Co-Expression of bone morphogenetic protein 6 with estrogen receptor a in endometriosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:1001–7. 10.1007/s00404-011-2082-8
    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. 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. Kimmig R, Ind T. Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: consequences for treatment after LACC study. J Gynecol Oncol 2018;29:e75. 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e75
    1. Naumann RW. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has many benefits compared with open radical hysterectomy: will the LACC trial cause the premature demise of this procedure? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:379–80. 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.01.002
    1. Leitao MM. The LACC trial: has minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer been dealt a knockout punch? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:1248–50. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001342
    1. Park JY, Nam JH. How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial? J Gynecol Oncol 2018;29:e74. 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e74
    1. Köhler C, Schneider A, Marnitz S, et al. . The basic principles of oncologic surgery during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. J Gynecol Oncol 2020;31:e33. 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e33
    1. Chao X, Li L, Wu M, et al. . 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. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029055. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029055
    1. Liu Y, Li L, Wu M, et al. . The impact of the surgical routes and learning curve of radical hysterectomy on the survival outcomes in stage Ib cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2019;68:72–7. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.06.009
    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. Nezhat F. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 2008;111:S29–32. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.025
    1. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, et al. . A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:162–7. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017
    1. Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, et al. . A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2009;113:357–61. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.009
    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. Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, 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;153:3–12. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.008
    1. Kohler C, Hertel H, Herrmann J, et al. . Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff - a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29:845–50. 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000388
    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. 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. Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44:265–72.
    1. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:297–303. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3
    1. Pedone Anchora L, Turco LC, Bizzarri N, et al. . How to select early-stage cervical cancer patients still suitable for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a Propensity-Matched study. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:1947–55. 10.1245/s10434-019-08162-5
    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:

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren