Surgical route and pathological risk factors in early cervical cancer - Node Zero (SURPEC-N0)

IF 1.4 Q4 ONCOLOGY
T. Shylasree, Stuti Gupta, A. Patil, Pooja Singh, A. Maheshwari, S. Menon, S. Chopra, L. Gurram, P. Popat, U. Mahantshetty, R. Kerkar
{"title":"Surgical route and pathological risk factors in early cervical cancer - Node Zero (SURPEC-N0)","authors":"T. Shylasree, Stuti Gupta, A. Patil, Pooja Singh, A. Maheshwari, S. Menon, S. Chopra, L. Gurram, P. Popat, U. Mahantshetty, R. Kerkar","doi":"10.20517/2394-4722.2022.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study is to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage I cervical cancer (≤ 4cms, lymph node-negative) undergoing open radical hysterectomy (ORH) vs. minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH). Methods: All patients undergoing radical hysterectomy between January 2012-December 2018 from the largest tertiary referral cancer centre were included. A 1:1 propensity matching was done based on four independent prognostic factors to compare DFS and OS with the route of surgery. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine patients were included during the study period. The median age of the cohort was 50 years. The median follow-up of patients was 47 months. Following 1:1 propensity matching, a total of 174 patients were analysed for DFS and OS in ORH (n = 87) and MIRH (n = 87) groups. Protective measure was used in two-thirds of the patients during MIRH. Twenty-nine patients (16.7%) had recurrences. For the matched cohort (n = 174), the DFS at 36 and 60 months was 84.8% (78.1%-89.6%) and 81% (73.4%-86.6%) respectively and the OS was 96.5% (91.7%-98.5%) and 95.6% (90.3%-98%) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS or OS between ORH and MIRH. Conclusion: The present study showed no difference in oncological outcomes in MIRH compared to ORH. Retrospective audits on patient characteristics such as screening/vaccination history along with surgical technique/load and matching for crucial risk factors should be factored in future studies to eliminate the possible methodological errors.","PeriodicalId":15167,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2022.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage I cervical cancer (≤ 4cms, lymph node-negative) undergoing open radical hysterectomy (ORH) vs. minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH). Methods: All patients undergoing radical hysterectomy between January 2012-December 2018 from the largest tertiary referral cancer centre were included. A 1:1 propensity matching was done based on four independent prognostic factors to compare DFS and OS with the route of surgery. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine patients were included during the study period. The median age of the cohort was 50 years. The median follow-up of patients was 47 months. Following 1:1 propensity matching, a total of 174 patients were analysed for DFS and OS in ORH (n = 87) and MIRH (n = 87) groups. Protective measure was used in two-thirds of the patients during MIRH. Twenty-nine patients (16.7%) had recurrences. For the matched cohort (n = 174), the DFS at 36 and 60 months was 84.8% (78.1%-89.6%) and 81% (73.4%-86.6%) respectively and the OS was 96.5% (91.7%-98.5%) and 95.6% (90.3%-98%) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in DFS or OS between ORH and MIRH. Conclusion: The present study showed no difference in oncological outcomes in MIRH compared to ORH. Retrospective audits on patient characteristics such as screening/vaccination history along with surgical technique/load and matching for crucial risk factors should be factored in future studies to eliminate the possible methodological errors.
早期宫颈癌的手术路径及病理危险因素-淋巴结零(SURPEC-N0)
目的:本研究的目的是比较I期宫颈癌(≤4cm,淋巴结阴性)行开放式根治性子宫切除术(ORH)与微创根治性子宫切除术(MIRH)患者的无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。方法:纳入2012年1月至2018年12月在最大的三级转诊癌症中心接受根治性子宫切除术的所有患者。基于四个独立的预后因素进行1:1倾向匹配,比较DFS和OS与手术方式的关系。结果:研究期间共纳入199例患者。该队列的中位年龄为50岁。患者的中位随访时间为47个月。按照1:1的倾向匹配,对ORH组(n = 87)和MIRH组(n = 87)共174例患者的DFS和OS进行分析。三分之二的患者在MIRH期间采取了保护措施。29例(16.7%)复发。配对队列(n = 174), 36个月和60个月的DFS分别为84.8%(78.1%-89.6%)和81% (73.4%-86.6%),OS分别为96.5%(91.7%-98.5%)和95.6%(90.3%-98%)。ORH与MIRH的DFS、OS差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究显示MIRH与ORH的肿瘤预后无差异。对患者特征的回顾性审计,如筛查/疫苗接种史、手术技术/负荷和关键风险因素的匹配,应在未来的研究中考虑,以消除可能的方法学错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
460
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信