Conference Coverage

VIDEO: Cervical cancer laparotomy outperforms minimally invasive surgery

View on the News

Further research needs to explain the findings

The findings from these studies appear valid and should be discussed with patients.

The findings raise a major question: Why has minimally invasive surgery (MIS) led to worse survival rates than laparotomy? Several possible explanations can be hypothesized: The uterine manipulator used in MIS led to local spread of cancer cells; MIS involves a learning curve and initial attempts at MIS did not remove enough of the tumor; and MIS led to increased exposure of the peritoneal cavity to the cancer. The findings also raise another question: Why has MIS for cervical cancer performed less well than MIS for cancers from other organs, such as endometrial and prostate?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Shitanshu Uppal

We also need to place these findings in context. Radical hysterectomy using MIS has shown clear advantages over laparotomy in terms of complications and blood loss. I analyzed data from the U.S. National Inpatient Sample for 2015, and I calculated that, for every 1,000 patients treated for early-stage cervical cancer by MIS radical hysterectomy, compared with laparotomy, the MIS approach would produce 70 fewer blood transfusions, 55 fewer medical complications, 35 fewer infectious complications, six fewer surgical complications, and two fewer deaths during the same hospitalization.

The overall survival results from the LACC trial calculate out to 4.75 added deaths per year for every 1,000 patients treated with MIS, compared with laparoscopy. But the National Inpatient Sample data suggest that MIS cuts mortality by about two deaths per year per 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy, and mortality data from a different analysis (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127[1]:11-7) suggest that MIS might prevent six deaths annually for every 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy. Overall, these three sets of findings suggest roughly comparable mortality outcomes from MIS and laparotomy, but with MIS having the bonus of fewer complications and less need for transfusions.

The cautions and concerns raised by the LACC trial and Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis of observational data cannot be easily dismissed. We need to figure out why the results from both studies show worse survival and recurrence rates with MIS, and we need to identify whether subgroups of patients exist who might clearly benefit from either the MIS or open-surgery approach.

Shitanshu Uppal, MD , is a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He made these comments as designated discussant for the two studies. He had no disclosures.


 

REPORTING FROM SGO 2018


Disease-free survival among all patients regardless of follow-up duration occurred in 98% of laparotomy patients and 92% of MIS patients, which translated into a 3.74 hazard ratio (P = .002) for disease recurrence or death among the MIS patients when compared with laparotomy patients. The all-cause mortality rates were 1% in the laparotomy patients and 6% among the MIS patients, a hazard ratio of 6.00 (P = .004). The risk of local or regional recurrences was more than fourfold higher in the MIS patients. A blinded, central panel adjudicated all recurrences identified during the study.

The LACC results “should be discussed with patients scheduled to undergo radical hysterectomy” for cervical cancer, Dr. Ramirez concluded.

The observational data from the National Cancer Database used in the analysis led by Dr. Rauh-Hain came from 2,221 patients hospitalized and treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection at a U.S. center during 2010-2012 for either stage 1A2 or 1B1 cervical cancer. Among these patients, 47.5% underwent MIS, with 79% of those procedures done with robotic assistance, while the other 52.5% underwent open laparotomy, Dr. Rauh-Hain reported. Additional analysis of data from this database by the researchers showed that, although the first report of MIS for radical hysterectomy appeared in 1992, the approach remained largely unused in U.S. practice until 2007, when use of MIS began to sharply rise. By 2010, about a third of radical hysterectomies for cervical cancer involved MIS, and usage increased still further during 2011 and 2012 to produce a nearly 48% rate during the 3-year study period.

The primary endpoint of Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis was overall survival following propensity-score matching of the MIS and laparotomy patients using 13 demographic and clinical criteria. The analysis showed 4-year mortality rates of 5.8% among the laparotomy patients and 8.4% among the MIS patients, which calculated to a relatively increased mortality hazard from MIS of 48% (P = .02).

Recommended Reading

Letrozole promising as maintenance treatment for high-grade serous ovarian cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
USPSTF: Routine screens for ovarian cancer not recommended
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Avelumab safety compares with other checkpoint inhibitors
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
FDA authorizes first direct-to-consumer BRCA1/2 test
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Chlamydia infections associated with more than a doubling of ovarian cancer risk
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
VIDEO: Everolimus/letrozole promising for recurrent endometrial cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
VIDEO: Pelvic radiation surpasses brachytherapy/chemo for early endometrial cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Oncologist-led BRCA mutation testing and counseling may reduce wait times for women with ovarian cancer
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Combined PARP, checkpoint inhibitor regimens show ovarian cancer activity
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Study: No increased risk of serious AEs with combined urogyn/gyn onc surgery
MDedge Hematology and Oncology