Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer

Hu,Min; Ji,Limei; Jin,Lanying; Shao,Mingjun

doi:10.3892/ol.2025.15027

Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer

Authors:
- Min Hu
- Limei Ji
- Lanying Jin
- Mingjun Shao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gynecology, Jinhua Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Jinhua, Zhejiang 321000, P.R. China
Published online on: April 8, 2025 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2025.15027
Article Number: 281

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with no tumor exposure. Briefly, a multicenter, retrospective analysis was conducted between January 2017 and June 2020 involving 350 women with early‑stage cervical cancer. Eligible patients were informed of the potential complications and benefits of abdominal radical hysterectomy and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. During surgery, the use of a uterine manipulator was avoided. Myoma drill and uterine suture techniques were employed, accompanied by protective measures for vaginal closure of the colpotomy, such as clamps, vaginal cuffs or sutures. Specimens were placed in a collection bag, which was extracted through the vaginal route. Over a median follow‑up period of 51 months (range, 30‑72 months), five patients were lost to follow‑up and three refused treatment following surgery; therefore, a total of 342 women with cervical cancer were followed up to the end of the study. The initial stage, according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 classification system, was identified as IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion in 22 cases (6.29%), IA2 in 36 cases (10.29%), IB1 in 137 cases (39.14%), IB2 in 126 cases (36.00%), IIA1 in 14 cases (4.00%) and IIIC1P in 15 cases (4.29%). Histologically, squamous cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 269 patients (76.86%), adenocarcinoma in 75 patients (21.43%) and adenosquamous carcinoma in six patients (1.71%). Lymphovascular invasion was confirmed in 80 patients (22.86%). Lymph nodes were tumor‑free in 335 patients (95.71%). After radical hysterectomy, 53 patients underwent brachytherapy and teletherapy, and 30 received chemotherapy alongside brachytherapy and teletherapy. After a median follow‑up time of 51 months (range, 30‑72 months), the disease‑free and overall survival rates were recorded as 95.71% (335/350) and 98.86% (346/350) respectively. In conclusion, minimally invasive surgery using maneuvers to avoid peritoneal contamination yields good oncologic outcomes for patients with early‑stage cervical cancer. The findings from the current retrospective analysis suggest that laparoscopic surgery could present a safe oncological option; however, further validation through randomized trials is essential.

View Figures

View References

1	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 70:7–30. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Casarin J, Buda A, Bogani G, Fanfani F, Papadia A, Ceccaroni M, Malzoni M, Pellegrino A, Ferrari F, Greggi S, et al: Predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol. 159:164–170. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Philp L, Covens A, Vicus D, Kupets R, Pulman K and Gien LT: Feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervix cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 147:572–576. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Jensen PT, Schnack TH, Frøding LP, Bjørn SF, Lajer H, Markauskas A, Jochumsen KM, Fuglsang K, Dinesen J, Søgaard CH, et al: 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. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N, et al: Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 379:1895–1904. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Charo LM, Vaida F, Eskander RN, Binder P, Saenz C, McHale M and 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. 157:494–499. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Hillemanns P, Brucker S, Holthaus B, Lampe B, Runnebaum I, Ulrich U, Wallwiener M, Solomayer E, Fehm T and Tempfer C: Comment on the LACC trial investigating early-stage cervical cancer by the uterus commission of the study group for gynecologic oncology (AGO) and the study group for gynecologic endoscopy (AGE) of the German society for gynecology and obstetics (DGGG). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 78:766–767. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Park JY and Nam JH: How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial? J Gynecol Oncol. 29:e742018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	National Comprehensive Cancer Network, . NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology - Cervical Cancer, Version 4. 2019.https://www2.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/gynecological/english/cervical.pdfDecember 30–2021
10	Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie Meder C, Köhler C, Landoni F, Lax S, Lindegaard JC, 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. 28:641–655. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y and Liang ZQ: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 15:9282015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM and Kim YT: Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: Long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 23:903–911. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Chen Y, Xu H, Li Y, Wang D, Li J, Yuan J and Liang Z: The outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: A prospective analysis of 295 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 15:2847–2855. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Gallotta V, Conte C, Federico A, Vizzielli G, Gueli Alletti S, Tortorella L, Pedone Anchora L, Cosentino F, Chiantera V, Fagotti A, et al: Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: A case matched control study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 44:754–759. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA and Holloway RW: Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 42:513–522. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Köhler C, Hertel H, Herrmann J, Marnitz S, Mallmann P, Favero G, Plaikner A, Martus P, Gajda M and Schneider A: Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff-a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 29:845–850. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D and Paley P: 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:e822017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, Seagle BL, Alexander A, Barber EL, Rice LW, et al: Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. New Engl J Med. 379:1905–1914. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, Kim YI, Lee M, Kim HS, Chung HH, Kim JW, Park NH and Song YS: 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. 153:3–12. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Doo DW, Kirkland CT, Griswold LH, McGwin G, Huh WK, Leath CA III and Kim KH: Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution. Gynecol Oncol. 153:242–247. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, Staf C, Rådestad AF, Reynisson P, Stålberg K, Falconer H, Persson J and Dahm-Kähler P: 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. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Wenzel HHB, Smolders RGV, Beltman JJ, Lambrechts S, Trum HW, Yigit R, Zusterzeel PLM, Zweemer RP, Mom CH, Bekkers RLM, et al: Survival of patients with early-stage cervical cancer after abdominal or laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A nationwide cohort study and literature review. Eur J Cancer. 133:14–21. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI