David Viveros-Carreño,Nuria Agusti,Chi-Fang Wu,Alexander Melamed,Roni Nitecki Wilke,Alexa Kanbergs,René Pareja,Abigail S Zamorano,J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
{"title":"Survival After Simple Compared With Radical Hysterectomy for Patients With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.","authors":"David Viveros-Carreño,Nuria Agusti,Chi-Fang Wu,Alexander Melamed,Roni Nitecki Wilke,Alexa Kanbergs,René Pareja,Abigail S Zamorano,J Alejandro Rauh-Hain","doi":"10.1097/aog.0000000000005743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nTo assess the effect on overall survival of simple hysterectomy with lymph node staging compared with radical hysterectomy with lymph node staging for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed with early cervical carcinoma of 2 cm or smaller (stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion through IIA1, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging) from 2010 to 2019. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we compared patients who underwent simple hysterectomy with lymph node staging and those with radical hysterectomy with lymph node staging. The variables used for matching were age, tumor size, race and ethnicity, lymphovascular space invasion, year of diagnosis, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, histology, and surgical approach. The primary outcome was overall survival at the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rate and 30- and 90-day mortality rates.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn total, 4,167 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 2,637 patients (63.3%) underwent radical hysterectomy and lymph node staging and 1,530 patients (36.7%) underwent simple hysterectomy and lymph node staging. After propensity score matching, 1,529 patients in each group were included. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who underwent simple hysterectomy and those who underwent radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI, 0.91-1.73, P=.17). Subgroup analysis by histology, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, and surgical approach did not reveal statistically significant differences in overall survival according to hysterectomy type. The hysterectomy groups also did not significantly differ in 30-day readmission rate (4.6% vs 4.2%, P=.73), 30-day mortality rate (0.1% vs 0%, P=.14), or 90-day mortality rate (0.1% vs 0.1%, P=.93).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nPatients with low-risk cervical cancer could undergo less radical surgery without a negative effect on their oncologic outcomes.","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000005743","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect on overall survival of simple hysterectomy with lymph node staging compared with radical hysterectomy with lymph node staging for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed with early cervical carcinoma of 2 cm or smaller (stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion through IIA1, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging) from 2010 to 2019. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we compared patients who underwent simple hysterectomy with lymph node staging and those with radical hysterectomy with lymph node staging. The variables used for matching were age, tumor size, race and ethnicity, lymphovascular space invasion, year of diagnosis, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, histology, and surgical approach. The primary outcome was overall survival at the end of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rate and 30- and 90-day mortality rates.
RESULTS
In total, 4,167 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 2,637 patients (63.3%) underwent radical hysterectomy and lymph node staging and 1,530 patients (36.7%) underwent simple hysterectomy and lymph node staging. After propensity score matching, 1,529 patients in each group were included. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients who underwent simple hysterectomy and those who underwent radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI, 0.91-1.73, P=.17). Subgroup analysis by histology, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor size, and surgical approach did not reveal statistically significant differences in overall survival according to hysterectomy type. The hysterectomy groups also did not significantly differ in 30-day readmission rate (4.6% vs 4.2%, P=.73), 30-day mortality rate (0.1% vs 0%, P=.14), or 90-day mortality rate (0.1% vs 0.1%, P=.93).
CONCLUSION
Patients with low-risk cervical cancer could undergo less radical surgery without a negative effect on their oncologic outcomes.
目的评估对早期宫颈癌患者进行淋巴结分期的单纯子宫切除术与进行淋巴结分期的根治性子宫切除术相比对总生存期的影响。 方法我们对2010年至2019年期间在美国国家癌症数据库中确诊为2厘米或更小的早期宫颈癌(国际妇产科联盟分期为IA1期,淋巴管间隙侵犯达到IIA1期)的患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。经过1:1倾向评分匹配后,我们比较了接受淋巴结分期的单纯子宫切除术和接受淋巴结分期的根治性子宫切除术的患者。用于匹配的变量包括年龄、肿瘤大小、种族和民族、淋巴管间隙侵犯、诊断年份、Charlson-Deyo 合并症评分、组织学和手术方法。主要结果是随访结束时的总生存率。结果 共有4167名患者符合纳入标准,其中2637名患者(63.3%)接受了根治性子宫切除术和淋巴结分期,1530名患者(36.7%)接受了单纯子宫切除术和淋巴结分期。经过倾向评分匹配后,每组均纳入了 1,529 名患者。接受单纯子宫切除术的患者与接受根治性子宫切除术的患者在总生存率上没有明显的统计学差异(危险比 1.25,95% CI,0.91-1.73,P=.17)。按组织学、淋巴管间隙侵犯、肿瘤大小和手术方式进行的亚组分析显示,子宫切除术类型不同,总生存率差异无统计学意义。子宫切除术组在30天再入院率(4.6% vs 4.2%,P=.73)、30天死亡率(0.1% vs 0%,P=.14)或90天死亡率(0.1% vs 0.1%,P=.93)方面也无显著差异。
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.