To compare the long-term oncologic outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for patients with stage Ia1-Ib3 cervical cancer.
A retrospective data of stage Ia1-Ib1 cervical cancer patients who underwent LRH and ARH at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from Jan. 2012 to Dec. 2015 was collected. Patients were re-classified according to the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer and screened out 679 cases with stage Ia1-Ib3 cervical cancer. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by software SPSS 22.0, and a total of 268 patient pairs (LRH-ARH) were enrolled and analyzed. Oncologic outcomes and prognosis factors were compared between patients undergoing LRH vs. ARH.
(1) Baseline characteristics after PSM: There were no statistical differences between LRH and ARH, but only in grade (p = 0.001). (2) Operation related data: The operative time [(228±90) vs (210±54) min], estimated blood loss (EBL) [(129.5±138.2) vs (207.8±204.6) ml], and the length of hospital stay [(10.6±3.5) vs (12.6±3.5) days] in the LRH group were significantly shorter compared with ARH group (all P < 0.001). (3) Recurrence and survival data: There was a significant difference in the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS; 86.4% vs 95.6%, p = 0.002) and 5-year overall survival (OS; 92.2% vs 97.5%, p = 0.017) between the LRH group and ARH groups. (4) Prognosis factors: In univariate and multivariat analysis, the results showed that surgical approach was common independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. (5) Stratified analysis: Stratified analysis in low-risk patients with cervical cancer showed that, even in stage Ib1 patients with tumor size <2 cm, there were significant differences for OS and DFS between LRH and ARH group (all P < 0.05). Besides, ALR group only showed better DFS than LRH group in patients with no lymph vascular space invasion.
Our results suggest that, for patients with stage Ia1-Ib3 cervical cancer, ARH results in more benefits for OS and DFS compared with LRH. Even in low-risk patients, ARH is still an oncologically safer alternative.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.
National Natural Science Fund.
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.