:: Volume 23, Issue 1 (1-2025) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2025, 23(1): 185-191 Back to browse issues page
Meta-analysis of curative effect of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy with primary chemo-radiation in patients with cervical cancer
J. Pan , H. Hang , Q. Hu
Department of Gynecology, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Zhejiang, China , likeyou022003@163.com
Abstract:   (2287 Views)
Background: The comparative analysis of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in cervical cancer (CC) patients undergoing primary chemoradiation has yielded divergent and contentious study conclusions. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science core database, Nature, Science Direct, and others, covering the period from January 2007 to the present. Results: Ten relevant articles were identified, encompassing 4,148 CC patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, with 1,949 (47.0%) undergoing MIRH and 2,199 (53.0%) undergoing ORH. Among these patients, 767 experienced recurrence, and 223 succumbed to the disease. The analysis revealed a slightly higher recurrence rate in patients who underwent MIRH versus ORH [OR=1.25, 95% CI=1.02~1.54, Z=2.16, P=0.03], demonstrating statistical significance (P<0.05). However, the mortality rate in MIRH patients was marginally superior to in ORH patients [OR=1.02, 95% CI=0.76 ~ 1.37, Z=0.11, P=0.91] (P>0.05). MIRH was associated with a slightly lower complication rate versus ORH [OR=0.40, 95% CI=0.28 ~ 0.57, Z=5.02, P<0.00001], and a significantly reduced incidence of perioperative blood transfusions [OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.05 ~ 0.58, Z=4.18, P<0.0001]. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ORH is linked to lower recurrence and mortality rates versus minimally invasive surgery, establishing its potential advantage in the treatment of CC.
Keywords: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH), cervical cancer, meta-analysis, primary chemo-radiotherapy.
Full-Text [PDF 1095 kb]   (480 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. (2018) Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med, 379(20): 1895-1904. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1806395]
2. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. (2018) Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med, 379(20): 1905-1914. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1804923]
3. Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. (2020) Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol, 6(7): 1019-1027. [DOI:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694]
4. Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, et al. (2020) Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 222(3): 249.e1-249.e10. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.036]
5. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. (2020) SUCCOR study Group. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 30(9): 1269-1277.
6. Frumovitz M, Obermair A, Coleman RL, et al. (2020) Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol, 21(6):851-860. [DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4]
7. van Workum F, Verstegen MHP, Klarenbeek BR, et al. (2021) ICAN collaborative research group. Intrathoracic vs cervical anastomosis after totally or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg, 156(7): 601-610.
8. Tavakoli F, Khatami SS, Momeni F, et al. (2021) Cervical cancer diagnosis: Insights into biochemical biomarkers and imaging techniques. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen, 24(5): 605-623. [DOI:10.2174/1386207323666200901101955]
9. Nica A, Kim SR, Gien LT, et al. (2020) Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame? Int J Gynecol Cancer, 30(12): 1864-1870. [DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001816]
10. Kim SI, Park DC, Lee SJ, et al. (2021) Survival rates of patients who undergo minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer with cervical involvement. Int J Med Sci, 18(10): 2204-2208. [DOI:10.7150/ijms.55026]
11. Li LY, Wen LY, Park SH, et al. (2021) Impact of the learning curve on the survival of abdominal or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Cancer Res Treat, 53(1): 243-251. [DOI:10.4143/crt.2020.063]
12. Wang Y, Wang A, Zhan J, et al. (2021) Curative effect of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical trachelectomy combined with pelvic lymph node dissection on early-stage cervical cancer. J BUON, 26(3): 684-690.
13. Ratiu D, Luncescu C, Morgenstern B, et al. (2019) Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Abdominal Surgery Among Patients With Cervical Cancer. Anticancer Res, 39(5): 2661-2664. [DOI:10.21873/anticanres.13390]
14. Dhanaworavibul K, Leetanaporn K, Wattanapaisal P, et al. (2023) Association between resting heart rate and oncological outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer who have undergone radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Oncol Res Treat, 46(5): 192-200. [DOI:10.1159/000529969]
15. Miller H, Matsuo K, Roman LD, et al. (2021) Adjuvant hysterectomy following primary chemoradiation for stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer: a retrospective comparison of complications for open versus minimally invasive surgery. Radiat Oncol, 16(1): 123. Erratum in: Radiat Oncol, 16(1): 162. [DOI:10.1186/s13014-021-01843-0]
16. Baessler K, Windemut S, Chiantera V, et al. (2021) Sexual, bladder and bowel function following different minimally invasive techniques of radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 23(11): 2335-2343. [DOI:10.1007/s12094-021-02632-7]
17. Gan YX, Du QH, Li J, et al. (2021) Adjuvant radiotherapy after minimally invasive surgery in patients with stage IA1-IIA1 cervical cancer. Front Oncol, 11: 690777. [DOI:10.3389/fonc.2021.690777]
18. Di Donato V, Bogani G, Casarin J, Ghezzi F, Malzoni M, Falcone F, et al. (2023) Ten-year outcomes following laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for "low-risk" early-stage cervical cancer: A propensity-score based analysis. Gynecol Oncol, 174: 49-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.030]
19. Uppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K, et al. (2020) Recurrence rates in patients with cervical cancer treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional retrospective review study. J Clin Oncol, 38(10): 1030-1040. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.19.03012]
20. Chua PT, Lee CL, Huang KG (2020) 100%5-Year Survival Rate in Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer is an Achievable Task. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther, 9(2): 53. [DOI:10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_23_20]
21. Courcier H, Azaïs H, Belghiti J, et al. (2021) Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: Rediscovering the Schautheim robot-assisted procedure. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod, 50(2): 101980. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101980]
22. Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. (2012) Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol, 23(4): 903-11. [DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdr360]
23. Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, et al. (2014) Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 21(5): 857-62. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.018]
24. Ditto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, et al. (2015) Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations. Eur J Surg Oncol, 41(1): 34-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.058]
25. Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, et al. (2017) Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol, 28(6): e82. [DOI:10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e82]
26. Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. (2019) No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer, 116: 169-177. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.05.016]
27. Wallin E, FlöterRådestad A, Falconer H (2017) Introduction of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: impact on complications, costs and oncologic outcome. Acta ObstetGynecol Scand, 96(5): 536-542. [DOI:10.1111/aogs.13112]
28. Cusimano MC, Baxter NN, Gien LT, et al. (2019) Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 221(6): 619.e1-619.e24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.009]
29. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. (2020) SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 30(9): 1269-1277. [DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506]
30. Salvo G, Ramirez PT, Leitao M, et al. (2019) International radical trachelectomy assessment: IRTA study. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 29(3): 635-638. [DOI:10.1136/ijgc-2019-000273]
31. Levine MD, Brown J, Crane EK, et al. (2018) Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 28(4): 824-828. [DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.07.021]
32. Gallotta V, Giudice MT, Conte C, et al. (2018) Minimally invasive salvage lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancer patients: A single institution series. Eur J Surg Oncol, 44(10): 1568-1572. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2018.08.006]
33. Jensen PT, Schnack TH, Frøding LP, et al. (2020) Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer - A population-based study. Eur J Cancer, 128: 47-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.020]
34. Kim M, Kong TW, Kim S, et al. (2019) Minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer: Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery position statement. J Gynecol Oncol, 30(5): e104. [DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.032]
35. Nasioudis D, Albright BB, Haggerty AF, et al. (2021) Survival following minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical carcinoma and tumor size ≤2 cm. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 224(3): 317-318. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.044]
36. Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. (2020) Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol, 6(7): 1019-1027. [DOI:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694]
37. Wang Y, Li B, Ren F, et al. (2020) Survival after minimally invasive vs. open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Oncol, 10: 1236. [DOI:10.3389/fonc.2020.01236]

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 23, Issue 1 (1-2025) Back to browse issues page