Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation and Implications of LACC Trial

  • Review article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

LACC trial is a multicentre randomized controlled noninferiority trial. It evaluated the oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery and open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. The results showed lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) arm.

Discussion

The results of the LACC trial were surprising and contrary to the outcomes in various other retrospective studies which compared outcomes in MIS and open arms for carcinoma cervix. We write this review article to rebut the LACC trial and point out few shortcomings of the trial. These may explain the outcomes.

The surgeon proficiency criteria for MIS RH in the trial are inadequate. Surgeons were required to submit two unedited operative videos of MIS radical hysterectomy and outcomes of at least ten cases. The routine use of a uterine manipulator causes tumour fragmentation and is against the norms of oncosurgery. Missing histopathological data in almost a third of cases and inadequate follow-up data add to the lacunae. We think the inferior oncological outcomes in MIS arm are not due to MIS per se but due to these factors. Great caution is required in interpreting the results of the LACC trial.

Conclusions

The authors of LACC trial mention that the results cannot be generalized to low-risk patients who still can undergo laparoscopic surgery. We recommend further trials to address the issue of safety of minimal access surgery in the treatment of early-stage carcinoma cervix. MIS radical hysterectomy can still be considered an oncologically safe treatment option in trained hands.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, Ramirez PT. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):584–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Takeda N, Sakuragi N, Takeda M, Okamoto K, Kuwabara M, Negishi H, Oikawa M, Yamamoto R, Yamada H, Fujimoto S. Multivariate analysis of histopathologic prognostic factors for invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(12):1144–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Metindir J, Bilir G. Prognostic factors affecting disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic-paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(1):28–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Memarzadeh S, Natarajan S, Dandade DP, Ostrzega N, Saber PA, Busuttil A, Lentz SE, Berek JS. Lymphovascular and perineural invasion in the parametria: a prognostic factor for early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):612–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Outcomes after radical hysterectomy according to tumour size divided by 2-cm interval in patients with early cervical cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1201–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Fusco A, Malzoni C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1316–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):903–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ditto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, Gasparri ML, Di Donato V, Zanaboni F, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee EJ, Kang H, Kim DH. A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):83–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Erati M, Casarin J, Pinelli C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):857–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, Favini G, Ferri L, Mangioni C. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9077):535–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jin YM, Liu SS, Chen J, Chen YN, Ren CC. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0193033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA, Holloway RW. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(4):513–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS. Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer: comparison of the first 50 and second 50 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(8):1459–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reade C, Hauspy J, Schmuck ML, Moens F. Characterizing the learning curve for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: buddy operating as a technique for accelerating skill acquisition. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(5):930–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitahara S, Walsh C, Frumovitz M, Malpica A, Silva EG. Vascular pseudoinvasion in laparoscopic hysterectomy specimens for endometrial carcinoma: a grossing artifact? Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:298–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lim S, Kim HS, Lee KB, Yoo CW, Park SY, Seo SS. Does the use of a uterine manipulator with an intrauterine balloon in total laparoscopic hysterectomy facilitate tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity in patients with endometrial cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1145–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonoda Y, Zerbe M, Smith A, Lin O, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ. High incidence of positive peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80:378–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Krizova A, Clarke BA, Bernardini MQ, et al. Histologic artifacts in abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy specimens:a blinded, retrospective review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:115–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kong TW, Chang SJ, Piao X, et al. Patterns of recurrence and survival after abdominal versus laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42:77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mo X, Yang Y, Lai H, Xiao J, He K, Chen J, Lin Y. Does carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum enhance wound metastases following laparoscopic abdominal tumor surgery? A meta-analysis of 20 randomized control studies. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(8):7351–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bentley JR. Minimally-invasive radical hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix: the perspective of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(2):143–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hillemanns P, Brucker S, Holthaus B, et al. 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 Obstetrics (DGGG). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018;78(8):766–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Park JY, Nam JH. How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial? J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leitao MM Jr. The LACC trial: has minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer been dealt a knockout punch? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(7):1248–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kimmig R, Ind T. Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: consequences for the treatment after LACC study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Subramanyeshwar Thammineedi Rao, Syed Nusrath, R. Rajagopalan Iyer, Sujit Chyau Patnaik, Ajesh Raj Saksena, Prasanth Vanzar & Srijan Shukla

Authors
  1. Subramanyeshwar Thammineedi Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Syed Nusrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Rajagopalan Iyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sujit Chyau Patnaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ajesh Raj Saksena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Prasanth Vanzar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Srijan Shukla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Rajagopalan Iyer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rao, S.T., Nusrath, S., Iyer, R. et al. Interpretation and Implications of LACC Trial. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 17, 39 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0278-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-019-0278-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation