• Users Online: 166
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
EDITORIAL
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 53

100% 5-Year survival rate in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer is an achievable task


1 Division of Gynaecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Kweishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Mahkota Medical Centre, Melaka, Malaysia
2 Division of Gynaecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Kweishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Date of Submission07-Mar-2020
Date of Decision20-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance25-Mar-2020
Date of Web Publication28-Apr-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Chyi- Long Lee
Division of Gynaecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, No. 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kweishan, Taoyuan
Taiwan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_23_20

Get Permissions


How to cite this article:
Chua PT, Lee CL, Huang KG. 100% 5-Year survival rate in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer is an achievable task. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2020;9:53

How to cite this URL:
Chua PT, Lee CL, Huang KG. 100% 5-Year survival rate in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer is an achievable task. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 May 31];9:53. Available from: http://www.e-gmit.com/text.asp?2020/9/2/53/283335



The debacle continues whether minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer should continue or be abandoned in favor of findings in a prospective, randomized trial.[1] Although minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has been shown to be associated with poorer outcome in LACC study, many centers worldwide performing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have data and experience that prove otherwise.[2],[3],[4] Systematic reviews and meta-analysis found no significant difference in 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival for patients undergoing either open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.[5]

Due to concern for patient safety, as well as to better guide clinicians in our local institution on how to proceed with the management of early-stage cervical cancer, we performed a review of surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients operated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital for cervical carcinoma stage 1A1–1B1 from January 2009 to May 2014.

Electronic medical record system was accessed. Patient demographic data, preoperative histological diagnosis, as well as surgical outcome were analyzed. Results were a significant, 100% 5-year survival for all patients. There were no cases of recurrence or death reported.

It is well known that the standardization of surgical technique is difficult, and individual surgeons perform differently from one another,[6] but adequacy of radicality and sticking to principle of oncologic concepts are the key points in treating cervical cancer with high survival rate. The Asia Pacific Association for Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy has embarked on the Minimally Invasive Therapy Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy trial in an attempt to clarify the issue at hand.[7] Strict selection criteria and standardization of surgical technique are the main focus of the said trial. We would like to invite suitably qualified centers and surgeons to participate in this study.



 
  References Top

1.
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.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
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. pii. S0090-8258(19)31868-2. [doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno. 2019.12.038].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lim TY, Lin KK, Wong WL, Aggarwal IM, Yam PK. Surgical and oncological outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Singapore. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2019;8:53-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
4.
Lee CL. Minimally invasive therapy for cancer: It is time to take actions for training system in minimally invasive therapy after LACC report. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2019;8:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Zhang SS, Ding T, Cui ZH, Lv Y, Jiang RA. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e14171.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Vergote I, Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Magtibay PM, Butler K, Gil-Moreno A, et al. The LACC trial and minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020;27:462-63.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Lee CL, Huang KG, Nam JH, Lim PC, Shun FW, Lee KW, et al. The statement of the Asia-Pacific association for gynecologic endoscopy and minimally invasive therapy for LACC study. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther 2019;8:91-3.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed273    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded63    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal