Abstract
Objective
To compare long-term survival outcomes and patterns of recurrence of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma.
Methods
The medical records of 293 patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical adenocarcinomas who underwent radical hysterectomy were retrospectively reviewed.
Results
In total, 186 patients underwent LRH and 107 underwent ORH. There was no difference between the two surgery groups in clinicopathologic characteristics. There were no differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the LRH and ORH groups (88.7 vs. 84.1 %, P = 0.725; and 93.0 vs. 86.9 %, P = 0.735) for univariate analysis and multivariate analysis after adjusting for other significant prognostic factors. There was no difference in the patterns of recurrence between the two surgery groups (P = 0.220). The median time interval between surgery and the first recurrence were 25 months (range, 3–100 months) for LRH group and 14 months (range, 3–128 months) for ORH group (P = 0.230). The LRH group showed significantly fewer postoperative complications (P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), faster bowel movement recovery (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001), and a lower rate of wound dehiscence, ileus, lymphedema, infected lymphocele, and pelvic abscess (P = 0.004, 0.011, 0.017, and 0.040, respectively).
Conclusions
LRH has comparable survival outcomes with ORH and did not affect the pattern of recurrence in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. The surgical outcomes were more favorable than ORH.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.
Jung KW, Won YJ, Oh CM, et al. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2015. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:142–8.
Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2012. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:127–41.
Kosary CL. FIGO stage, histology, histologic grade, age and race as prognostic factors in determining survival for cancers of the female gynecological system: an analysis of 1973-87 SEER cases of cancers of the endometrium, cervix, ovary, vulva, and vagina. Semin Surg Oncol. 1994;10:31–46.
Vinh-Hung V, Bourgain C, Vlastos G, et al. Prognostic value of histopathology and trends in cervical cancer: a SEER population study. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:164.
Attanoos R, Nahar K, Bigrigg A, et al. Primary adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a clinicopathologic study of prognostic variables in 55 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1995;5:179–86.
Quinn MA. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix: are there arguments for a different treatment policy? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9:21–4.
Berek JS, Hacker NF, Fu YS, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: histologic variables associated with lymph node metastasis and survival. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:46–52.
Hopkins MP, Morley GW. A comparison of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:912–7.
Kjorstad KE. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1977;5:219–23.
Gien LT, Beauchemin MC, Thomas G. Adenocarcinoma: a unique cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116:140–6.
Zheng T, Holford TR, Ma Z, et al. The continuing increase in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a birth cohort phenomenon. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:252–8.
Vizcaino AP, Moreno V, Bosch FX, et al. International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer: I. Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:536–45.
Shimada M, Kigawa J, Nishimura R, et al. Ovarian metastasis in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:234–7.
Kuji S, Hirashima Y, Komeda S, et al. The relationship between positive peritoneal cytology and the prognosis of patients with FIGO stage I/II uterine cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014;25:90–6.
Fujiwara K, Monk B, Devouassoux-Shisheboran M. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: why is it different? Curr Oncol Rep. 2014;16:416.
Adegoke O, Kulasingam S, Virnig B. Cervical cancer trends in the United States: a 35-year population-based analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21:1031–7.
Baalbergen A, Veenstra Y, Stalpers L. Primary surgery versus primary radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for early adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD006248.
Pellegrino A, Vizza E, Fruscio R, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with Ib1 stage cervical cancer: analysis of surgical and oncological outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:98–103.
Chen Y, Xu H, Li Y, et al. The outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: a prospective analysis of 295 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2847–55.
Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Moore K, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:402–9.
Piver MS, Chung WS. Prognostic significance of cervical lesion size and pelvic node metastases in cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 1975;46:507–10.
Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:903–11.
Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, et al. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:177–83.
Chargui R, Damak T, Khomsi F, et al. Prognostic factors and clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:43–8.
Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–40.
Trimble EL, Harlan LC, Gius D, et al. Patterns of care for women with cervical cancer in the United States. Cancer. 2008;113:743–9.
Kato T, Watari H, Takeda M, et al. Multivariate prognostic analysis of adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013;24:222–8.
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Outcomes after radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage adenocarcinoma of uterine cervix. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:1692–8.
Fujiwara H, Yokota H, Monk B, et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:S96–101.
Kucukmetin A, Biliatis I, Naik R, et al. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD006651.
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:63–9.
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:1201–9.
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy for elderly patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:195 e1–8.
Disclosure
The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, JY., Kim, D., Suh, DS. et al. The Role of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix. Ann Surg Oncol 23 (Suppl 5), 825–833 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5489-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5489-4