Radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Europe: characteristics, outcomes and evaluation of ESGO quality indicators

Introduction Comprehensive updated information on cervical cancer surgical treatment in Europe is scarce. Objective To evaluate baseline characteristics of women with early cervical cancer and to analyze the outcomes of the ESGO quality indicators after radical hysterectomy in the SUCCOR database. Methods The SUCCOR database consisted of 1272 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) between January 2013 and December 2014. After exclusion criteria, the final sample included 1156 patients. This study first described the clinical, surgical, pathological, and follow-up variables of this population and then analyzed the outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) after radical hysterectomy. Surgical-related ESGO quality indicators were assessed and the accomplishment of the stated recommendations was verified. Results The mean age of the patients was 47.1 years (SD 10.8), with a mean body mass index of 25.4 kg/m2 (SD 4.9). A total of 423 (36.6%) patients had a previous cone biopsy. Tumor size (clinical examination) <2 cm was observed in 667 (57.7%) patients. The most frequent histology type was squamous carcinoma (794 (68.7%) patients), and positive lymph nodes were found in 143 (12.4%) patients. A total of 633 (54.8%) patients were operated by open abdominal surgery. Intra-operative complications occurred in 108 (9.3%) patients, and post-operative complications during the first month occurred in 249 (21.5%) patients, with bladder dysfunction as the most frequent event (119 (10.3%) patients). Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication occurred in 56 (4.8%) patients. A total of 510 (44.1%) patients received adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 58 months (range 0–84), the 5-year disease-free survival was 88.3%, and the overall survival was 94.9%. In our population, 10 of the 11 surgical-related quality indicators currently recommended by ESGO were fully fulfilled 5 years before its implementation. Conclusions In this European cohort, the rate of adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy is higher than for most similar patients reported in the literature. The majority of centers were already following the European recommendations even 5 years prior to the ESGO quality indicator implementations.

[1]  I. Zapardiel,et al.  Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis , 2021, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[2]  R. Jach,et al.  SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer , 2020, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[3]  S. Marnitz,et al.  Sentinel lymph node mapping and intraoperative assessment in a prospective, international, multicentre, observational trial of patients with cervical cancer: The SENTIX trial. , 2020, European journal of cancer.

[4]  P. Ramirez,et al.  Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[5]  J. Lang,et al.  Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study. , 2020, Gynecologic oncology.

[6]  K. Tucker,et al.  Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study. , 2020, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  F. Landoni,et al.  European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer , 2020, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[8]  Jacques Ferlay,et al.  Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis , 2019, The Lancet. Global health.

[9]  L. Dušek,et al.  Oncologic outcome after completing or abandoning (radical) hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer and intraoperative detection of lymph node positivity; ABRAX (ABandoning RAd hyst in cerviX cancer) , 2019, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[10]  Jia-xin Yang,et al.  Laparoscopic vs. Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Single-Institution, Propensity Score Matching Study in China , 2019, Front. Oncol..

[11]  H. Chung,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. , 2019, Gynecologic oncology.

[12]  C. Choi,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). , 2019, Gynecologic oncology.

[13]  R. Moineddin,et al.  Impact of Surgical Approach on Oncologic Outcomes in Women Undergoing Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. , 2019, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  P. Dahm-Kähler,et al.  No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. , 2019, European journal of cancer.

[15]  W. Huh,et al.  Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution. , 2019, Gynecologic oncology.

[16]  V. Gebski,et al.  Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Jason D. Wright,et al.  Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early‐Stage Cervical Cancer , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Richard Pötter,et al.  The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Cervical Cancer , 2018, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[19]  R. Pötter,et al.  The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. , 2018, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[20]  D. Kim,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  B N Bundy,et al.  A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. , 1999, Gynecologic oncology.

[22]  M. Burrell,et al.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[23]  E. Wertheim Zur Frage der Radicaloperation beim Uteruskrebs , 1900, Archiv für Gynäkologie.

[24]  D. Querleu [Radical hysterectomies by the Schauta-Amreich and Schauta-Stoeckel techniques assisted by celioscopy]. , 1991, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.