Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):544-555.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.12.023. Epub 2020 Dec 24.

Abstract

Objective: To compare recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival for early-stage cervical cancer after minimally invasive (MIS) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases.

Methods of study selection: We identified studies from 1990 to 2020 that included women with stage I or higher cervical cancer treated with primary radical hysterectomy and compared recurrence and/or PFS and overall survival with MIS vs abdominal radical hysterectomy. (The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD4202173600).

Tabulation, integration, and results: We performed random-effects meta-analyses overall and by length of follow-up. Fifty articles on 40 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial that included 22 593 women with cervical cancer met the inclusion criteria. Twenty percent of the studies had <36 months of follow-up, and 24% had more than 60 months of follow-up. The odds of PFS were worse for women undergoing MIS radical hysterectomy (odds ratio 1.54; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.24-1.94; 14 studies). When limited to studies with longer follow-up, the odds of PFS were progressively worse with MIS radical hysterectomy (HR [hazard ratio] 1.48 for >36 months; 95% CI, 1.21-1.82; 10 studies; HR 1.69 for >48 months; 95% CI, 1.26-2.27; 5 studies; and HR 2.020 for >60 months; 95% CI, 1.36-3.001; 3 studies). For overall survival, the odds were not significantly different for MIS vs abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66-1.35; 14 studies) (HR 0.99 for >36 months; 95% CI, 0.66-1.48; 9 studies; HR 1.05 for >48 months; 95% CI, 0.57-1.94; 4 studies; and HR 1.35 for >60 months; 95% CI, 0.73-2.51; 3 studies).

Conclusion: In our meta-analysis of 50 studies, MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse PFS than open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. The emergence of this finding with longer follow-up highlights the importance of long-term, high-quality studies to guide cancer and surgical treatments.

Keywords: Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotics; Survival.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adenocarcinoma / epidemiology
  • Adenocarcinoma / pathology
  • Adenocarcinoma / surgery
  • Adult
  • Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / epidemiology
  • Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / pathology
  • Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / surgery
  • Cohort Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Hysterectomy / adverse effects
  • Hysterectomy / methods*
  • Hysterectomy / statistics & numerical data
  • Middle Aged
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures* / methods
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures* / statistics & numerical data
  • Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / epidemiology
  • Neoplasm Staging
  • Progression-Free Survival
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / methods
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / statistics & numerical data
  • Survival Analysis
  • Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / epidemiology
  • Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / pathology
  • Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / surgery*