Current Oncology (Feb 2023)

Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study

  • Christa Aubrey,
  • Gregory R. Pond,
  • Limor Helpman,
  • Danielle Vicus,
  • Laurie Elit,
  • Marie Plante,
  • Susie Lau,
  • Janice S. Kwon,
  • Alon D. Altman,
  • Karla Willows,
  • Tomer Feigenberg,
  • Jeanelle Sabourin,
  • Vanessa Samouelian,
  • Laurence Bernard,
  • Norah Cockburn,
  • Nora-Beth Saunders,
  • Sabrina Piedimonte,
  • Ly-Ann Teo-Fortin,
  • Soyoun Rachel Kim,
  • Noor Sadeq,
  • Ji-Hyun Jang,
  • Sarah Shamiya,
  • Gregg Nelson

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30020153
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 30, no. 2
pp. 1977 – 1985

Abstract

Read online

Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare between cohorts. Within the total cohort, 238/1696 (14%) had no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen (122 MIS, 103 AH, and 13 VLH). The majority of cases in the cohort were FIGO 2018 stage IB1 (43.7%) and underwent a radical hysterectomy (81.9%). There was no statistical difference between stage, histology, and radical vs simple hysterectomy between the abdominal and minimally invasive groups. There were no significant differences in RFS (5-year: MIS/LVH 97.7%, AH 95.8%, p = 0.23) or OS (5-year: MIS/VLH 98.9%, AH 97.4%, p = 0.10), although event-rates were low. There were only two recurrences. In this large study including only patients with no residual cervical cancer on hysterectomy specimen, no significant differences in survival were seen by surgical approach. This may be due to the small number of events or due to no actual difference between the groups. Further studies are warranted.

Keywords