Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer., Methods: Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss., Results: The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18-82), median body mass index 25 kg/m 2 (range 15-68), and 1022 (88.3%) patients were considered to have an optimal performance status (ECOG Performance Status 0). The most common histologic tumor type was squamous carcinoma (n=794, 68.7%) and the most frequent FIGO staging was IB1 (n=510, 44.1%). In the minimally invasive surgery group the median duration of surgery was longer (240 vs 187 min, p<0.01), median estimated blood loss was lower (100 vs 300 mL, p<0.01), and median length of hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 7 days, p<0.01) compared with the abdominal surgery group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. Regarding grade I complications, the incidence of vaginal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.6%, p<0.01) and vaginal cuff dehiscence was higher in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the open group (3.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.01). Regarding grade III post-operative complications, bladder dysfunction (1.3% vs 0.2%, p=0.046) and abdominal wall infection (1.1% vs 0%, p=0.018) were more common in the open surgery group than in the minimally invasive surgery group. Ureteral fistula was more frequent in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group (1.7% vs 0.5%, p=0.037)., Conclusion: Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009)., Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score., Results: We obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively)., Conclusions: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Comprehensive updated information on cervical cancer surgical treatment in Europe is scarce., Objective: To evaluate baseline characteristics of women with early cervical cancer and to analyze the outcomes of the ESGO quality indicators after radical hysterectomy in the SUCCOR database., Methods: The SUCCOR database consisted of 1272 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) between January 2013 and December 2014. After exclusion criteria, the final sample included 1156 patients. This study first described the clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up variables of this population and then analyzed the outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) after radical hysterectomy. Surgical-related ESGO quality indicators were assessed and the accomplishment of the stated recommendations was verified., Results: The mean age of the patients was 47.1 years (SD 10.8), with a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m 2 (SD 4.9). A total of 423 (36.6%) patients had a previous cone biopsy. Tumor size (clinical examination) <2 cm was observed in 667 (57.7%) patients. The most frequent histology type was squamous carcinoma (794 (68.7%) patients), and positive lymph nodes were found in 143 (12.4%) patients. A total of 633 (54.8%) patients were operated by open abdominal surgery. Intra-operative complications occurred in 108 (9.3%) patients, and post-operative complications during the first month occurred in 249 (21.5%) patients, with bladder dysfunction as the most frequent event (119 (10.3%) patients). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication occurred in 56 (4.8%) patients. A total of 510 (44.1%) patients received adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 58 months (range 0-84), the 5-year disease-free survival was 88.3%, and the overall survival was 94.9%. In our population, 10 of the 11 surgical-related quality indicators currently recommended by ESGO were fully fulfilled 5 years before its implementation., Conclusions: In this European cohort, the rate of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy is higher than for most similar patients reported in the literature. The majority of centers were already following the European recommendations even 5 years prior to the ESGO quality indicator implementations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse., Methods: We obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group., Results: Mean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m 2 (range; 15-49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52)., Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)