Skip to main content

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

From Melamed A, Ramirez PT. Changing treatment landscape for early cervical cancer: outcomes reported with minimally invasive surgery compared with an open approach. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32:22–7

Fig. 2

From Ramirez PT, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–904. Figure 1 in the article

Fig. 3

From Charo LM, et al. Rapid dissemination of practice-changing information: a longitudinal analysis of real-world rates of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy before and after presentation of the LACC trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2020

References

  1. 1.

    Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:1941–1953.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Shaw RE, Burke WM, Deutsch I, Wright JD. Primary therapy for early-stage cervical cancer: radical hysterectomy vs radiation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:485e1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Adams E, Boulton MG, Horne A, Rose PW, Durrant L, Collingwood M, et al. The effects of pelvic radiotherapy on cancer survivors: Symptom profile, psychological morbidity and quality of life. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26:10–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dursun P, Gultekin M, Ayhan A. The history of radical hysterectomy. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2011;15:235–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hoffman MS. Extent of radical hysterectomy: Evolving emphasis. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:1–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Meigs JV. Radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissections: A report of 100 patients operated on five or more years ago. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1951;62:854–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Obermair A, Brennan D, Bristow R (2017) Management of surgical complications of gynecologic cancer treatment. In: Dennis Chi AB, Dizon DS, Yashar C (eds) Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 823–830.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Fischerova D, Pather S, Lavigne K, Slama J, et al. Surgical treatment of “intermediate risk” lymph node-negative cervical cancer patients without adjuvant radiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;151:438–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR, Munsell MF, Jhingran A, Wharton JT, et al. Quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7428–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Basaran D, Dusek L, Majek O, Cibula D. Oncological outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3033–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, Frumovitz M, Lopez A, Moretti-Marques R, et al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222:249e1–e10.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dargent DF. Laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic oncology: Some disputable applications and one fruitful indication. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:725–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, Benigno BB, Welander CE. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:864–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ting HC. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A preliminary experience. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994;1(4, Part 2):S36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sedlacek TV, Campion MJ, Hutchins RA, Reich H. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: A preliminary report. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994;1(4, Part 2):S32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Ballon SC. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:340–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Benjamin I, Bararat RR, Curtin JP, Jones WB, Lewis JL, Hoskins WJ. Blood transfusion for radical hysterectomy before and after the discovery of transfusion-related human immunodeficiency virus infection. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:974–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Pomel C, Atallah D, Le Bouedec G, Rouzier R, Morice P, Castaigne D, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:534–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:176–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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;16:1316–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, Moore K, Sonoda Y, Venkatraman E, Brown C, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gil-Moreno A, Díaz-Feijoo B, Roca I, Puig O, Pérez-Benavente MA, Aguilar I, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with intraoperative sentinel node identification in patients with early invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;96:187–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ramirez PT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, dos Reis R, Frumovitz M. Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110(3 Suppl 2):S21–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, et al. 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;15:584–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Sert BM, Abeler VM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection: case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27:531–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M. Robotic radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:649e1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lowe MP, Chamberlain DH, Kamelle SA, Johnson PR, Tillmanns TD. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:191–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    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;23:903–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D, Paley P. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28:e82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    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:e0193033.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117:260–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Clinical Practice Robotics Task Force. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:180–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical cancer, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:395–404; quiz 404.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Melamed A, Ramirez PT. Changing treatment landscape for early cervical cancer: outcomes reported with minimally invasive surgery compared with an open approach. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32:22–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1905–14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    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;28:1248–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Acuna SA, Dossa F, Baxter NN. Frequency of misinterpretation of inconclusive noninferiority trials: the case of the laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer trials. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:90–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Uppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K, Bixel KL, Matsuo K, Vetter MH, et al. Recurrence rates in patients with cervical cancer treated with abdominal versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional retrospective review study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1030–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cusimano MC, Baxter NN, Gien LT, Moineddin R, Liu N, Dossa F, et al. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:619 e1–e24.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Paik ES, Lim MC, Kim MH, Kim YH, Song ES, Seong SJ, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study (KGOG 1028). Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154:547–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kim SI, Lee M, Lee S, Suh DH, Kim HS, Kim K, et al. Impact of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on survival outcome in patients with FIGO stage IB cervical cancer: a matching study of two institutional hospitals in Korea. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;155:75–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Chen X, Zhao N, Ye P, Chen J, Nan X, Zhao H, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤ 2 cm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(5):564–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Anchora LP, Turco LC, Bizzarri N, Capozzi VA, Lombisani A, Chiantera V, et al. How to select early-stage cervical cancer patients still suitable for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a propensity-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1947–55.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Frumovitz M, Obermair A, Coleman RL, Pareja R, Lopez A, Ribero R, et al. Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:851–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Charo LM, Vaida F, Eskander RN, Binder P, Saenz C, McHale M, et al. Rapid dissemination of practice-changing information: a longitudinal analysis of real-world rates of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy before and after presentation of the LACC trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157:494–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:64–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    FIGO Gynecologic Oncology Committee. FIGO statement on minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149:264.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Querleu D, Cibula D, Concin N, Fagotti A, Ferrero A, Fotopoulou C, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) statement. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Oncology SoG. SGOmember update: emerging data on the surgical approach for radical hysterectomy in the treatment of women with cervical cancer, 2019. Retrieved 24 Apr 2020 at https://www.sgo.org/clinical-practice/guidelines/sgo-member-update-emerging-data-on-the-surgical-approach-for-radical-hysterectomy-in-the-treatment-of-women-with-cervical-cancer/.

  55. 55.

    Tewari KS. Minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical carcinoma: interpreting the laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer trial results. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:3075–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Koninckx PR, Puga M, Ussia A, Zupi E, Keckstein J, Adamian L, et al. Regarding: “the LACC trial and minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer.” J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:239–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Kimmig R, Ind T. Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: consequences for treatment after LACC Study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29:e75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Jensen PT, Schnack TH, Frøding LP, Bjørn SF, Lajer H, Markauskas A, et al. Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;128:47–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Brandt B, Sioulas V, Basaran D, Kuhn T, LaVigne K, Gardner GJ, et al. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156:591–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Kohler C, Hertel H, Herrmann J, Marnitz S, Mallmann P, Favero G, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff: a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:845–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Boyraz G, Karalok A, Basaran D, Turan T. Vaginal closure with EndoGIA to prevent tumor spillage in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26:602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Martino MA, Bixel K, Johnson AM, Wejkszner T, Jacobs A, Lazaro J, et al. A novel technique to minimize contamination for cervical cancer surgery patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;S1553-4650(20)30039-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Chao X, Li L, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, et al. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e029055.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Falconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, Dahm-Kähler P, Ottander U, Lundin ES, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:1072–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario M. Leitao Jr. MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Mario Leitao received consulting fees from Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The remaining authors have no conflicts 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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basaran, D., Leitao, M.M. The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 204–211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09265-0

Download citation