medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2021, Number 10

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (10)

Surgical treatment or early stage cervical cáncer: a literatura review

Santa María-Ortiz JK, Bermúdez-González M

Language: Spanish
References: 42
Page: 802-809
PDF size: 218.23 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The surgical approach to early stage cervical cancer has been shown for many years to have the same results between the open and minimally invasive routes, with fewer theoretical complications in the latter.
Objective: To provide a description of the current evidence on the optimal approach for the surgical treatment of early stage cervical cancer.
Methodology: A bibliographic search was carried out through Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL between 2017 and 2021.
Results: From what has been reviewed, it is hypothesized that open surgery allows greater anterior traction of the uterus, thus facilitating a wider resection of the uterosacral ligaments and parametria.
Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach route has been shown to have worse results in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival, compared to the open route. The open approach should be reconsidered as the gold standard for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.


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 (6): 394-424. https:// doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

  2. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17 (1): 64-84. https://doi.org/10.6004/ jnccn.2019.0001

  3. 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 (20): 1895-904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395

  4. Cibula D, Pötter 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 (4): 641-55. doi. 10.1097/ IGC.0000000000001216

  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network [internet]. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer (version I.2018). 2017. http://oncolife.com.ua/doc/ nccn/ Cervical_Cancer.pdf

  6. Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 928. doi: 10.1186/ s12885-015-1818-4

  7. Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, Wan T, Liu J. Prognostic and Safety Roles in Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: A Meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2015; 25 (12): 990-8. doi: 10.1089/ lap.2015.0390

  8. Lee EJ, Kang H, Kim DH. 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 (1): 83-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.016

  9. Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA, Holloway RW. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional experience for earlystage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42 (4): 513-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.12.014.

  10. 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 (4): 903-11. doi: 10.1093/ annonc/mdr360

  11. Lin F, Pan L, Li L, Li D, Mo L. Effects of a simulated CO2 pneumoperitoneum environment on the proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis of cervical cancer cells in vitro. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 2497-503. doi: 10.12659/MSM.891179

  12. Volz J, Köster S, Spacek Z, Paweletz N. The influence of pneumoperitoneum used in laparoscopic surgery on an intraabdominal tumor growth. Cancer 1999; 86 (5): 770-4.

  13. Kong TW, Chang SJ, Piao X, Paek J, Lee Y, Lee EJ, et al. Patterns of recurrence and survival after abdominal versus laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42 (1): 77-86. doi: 10.1111/jog.12840

  14. Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, Frumovitz M, Lopez A, Moretti-Marques R, et al. 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 2020; 222 (3): 249.e1-249.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.036

  15. Frumovitz M, Obermair A, Coleman RL, Pareja R, Lopez A, Ribero R, et al. 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 2020; 21 (6): 851-60. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4

  16. Vergote I, Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Magtibay PM, Butler K, Gil-Moreno A, et al. The LACC Trial and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cervical Cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020; 27 (2): 462-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.767

  17. Verleye L, Vergote I, Reed N, Ottevanger PB. Quality assurance for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: the view of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynecological Cancer Group (EORTC-GCG). Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (10): 1631-8. Doi. 10.1093/annonc/mdp196

  18. Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9 (3): 297-303. doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(08)70074-3

  19. Bonte AS, Luyckx A, Wyckmans L, Trinh XB, van Dam PA. Quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019; 45 (4): 528-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.051

  20. 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 (20): 1905-14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923

  21. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, 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 (7): 695-700. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8645

  22. Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, Forder P, Brand A, Hogg R, 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 (12): 1224-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068

  23. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E; COLOR II Study Group. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (14): 1324-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882

  24. Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Krause KJ, Tergas AI, Wright JD, et al. Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6 (7): 1019-27. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694

  25. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, Martin-Calvo N, Arévalo- Serrano J, Căpîlna ME, et al; 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 2020; 30 (9): 1269-77. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506

  26. Jin YM, Liu SS, Chen J, Chen YN, Ren CC. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. PLoS One 2018; 13 (3): e0193033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193033

  27. Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 138 (2): 457-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009

  28. Tinelli R, Cicinelli E, Tinelli A, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of early- stage endometrial cancer with and without uterine manipulator: our experience and review of literature. Surg Oncol 2016; 25: 98-103.

  29. Uppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K. Recurrence rates in cervical cancer patients treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional analysis of 700 cases. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 1030-40.

  30. KöhlerC,HertelH,HerrmannJ,etal. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff: a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019; 29 (5): 845-50. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2019-000388

  31. Nica A, Kim SR, Gien LT, Covens A, Bernardini MQ, Bouchard-Fortier G, et al. Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame? Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30 (12): 1864-70. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001816

  32. Matsuo K, Matsuzaki S, Mandelbaum RS, Chang EJ, Klar M, Matsushima K, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: Volumeoutcome relationship in the early experience period. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 158 (2): 390-396. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2020.05.009

  33. Lee B, Kim K, Park Y, Lim MC, Bristow RE. Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (49): e13445. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013445

  34. Kim S, Min KJ, Lee S, Hong JH, Song JY, Lee JK, Lee NW. Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Asian J Surg 2021; 44 (1): 174-80. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.05.006

  35. Li LY, Wen LY, Park SH, Nam EJ, Lee JY, Kim S, et al. Impact of the learning curve on the survival of abdominal or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2021; 53 (1): 243-51. doi: 10.4143/crt.2020.063

  36. Charo LM, Vaida F, Eskander RN, Binder P, Saenz C, McHale M, Plaxe S. Rapid dissemination of practice-changing information: A longitudinal analysis of real-world rates of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy before and after presentation of the LACC trial. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157 (2): 494-99. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.018

  37. Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Chon HS, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Cervical Cancer, Version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 18 (6): 660-666. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0027

  38. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO). Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: An ESGO statement. https://www.esgo.org/explore/council/laparoscopicradical- hysterectomy-an-esgo-statement

  39. Society of gynecological oncology [internet]. SGO member update: emerging data on the surgical approach for radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with cervical cancer (september 2019). https://www.sgo.org/resources/ sgo-member-update-emerging-data-on-the-surgicalapproach- for-radical-hysterectomy-in-the-treatment-ofwomen- with-cervical-cancer/

  40. FIGO Gynecologic Oncology Committee. FIGO statement on minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020; 149 (3): 264. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13141.

  41. European Society for Medical Oncology. eUpdate - Cervical Cancer Treatment Recommendations. https://www.esmo. org/guidelines/gynaecological-cancers/cervical-cancer/ eupdate-cervical-cancer-treatment-recommendations

  42. Working Group of ESGE and SERGS. The role of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: ESGESERGS position document and joint-statement. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2020; 12 (1): 13.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com