Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

• Autores: Ramirez, PT, Frumovitz, M, Pareja, R, Lopez, A, Vieira, M, Ribeiro, R, Buda, A, Yan, X, Shuzhong, Y, Chetty, N, Isla, D, Tamura, M, Zhu, T, Robledo, KP, Gebski, V, Asher, R, Behan, V, Nicklin, JL, Coleman, RL, Obermair, A
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2018
• Institución: Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
• Repositorio: INEN-Institucional
• Lenguaje: inglés
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.inen.sld.pe:inen/124
• Enlace del recurso: https://repositorio.inen.sld.pe/handle/inen/124
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.21

Background: There are limited data from retrospective studies regarding whether survival outcomes after laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (minimally invasive surgery) are equivalent to those after open abdominal radical hysterectomy (open surgery) among women with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: In this trial involving patients with stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion), IA2, or IB1 cervical cancer and a histologic subtype of squamous-cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, we randomly assigned patients to undergo minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. The primary outcome was the rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years, with noninferiority claimed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference (minimally invasive surgery minus open surgery) was greater than -7.2 percentage points (i.e., closer to zero). Results: A total of 319 patients were assigned to minimally invasive surgery and 312 to open surgery. Of the patients who were assigned to and underwent minimally invasive surgery, 84.4% underwent laparoscopy and 15.6% robot-assisted surgery. Overall, the mean age of the patients was 46.0 years. Most patients (91.9%) had stage IB1 disease. The two groups were similar with respect to histologic subtypes, the rate of lymphovascular invasion, rates of parametrial and lymph-node involvement, tumor size, tumor grade, and the rate of use of adjuvant therapy. The rate of disease-free survival at 4.5 years was 86.0% with minimally invasive surgery and 96.5% with open surgery, a difference of -10.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.4 to -4.7). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of disease-free survival than open surgery (3-year rate, 91.2% vs. 97.1%; hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death from cervical cancer, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.63 to 8.58), a difference that remained after adjustment for age, body-mass index, stage of disease, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph-node involvement; minimally invasive surgery was also associated with a lower rate of overall survival (3-year rate, 93.8% vs. 99.0%; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 6.00; 95% CI, 1.77 to 20.30). Conclusions: In this trial, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with lower rates of disease-free survival and overall survival than open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. (Funded by the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic; LACC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00614211 .).