Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜与腹式根治性子宫切除术治疗可见或不可见肿瘤的ⅠB1 期和肿瘤直径<2 cm 的宫颈癌的比较:一项多中心回顾性研究。

Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm cervical cancer with visible or invisible tumors: a multicentre retrospective study.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yuncheng Central Hospital, Yuncheng, China.

出版信息

J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Mar;32(2):e17. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17. Epub 2020 Dec 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 1,484 cervical cancer patients with IB1 and tumor size <2 cm on final pathology, who received ARH (n=899) or LRH (n=585) between January 2004 and December 2016. Patients were divided into visible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=668, LRH: n=444) and invisible tumor subgroup (ARH: n=231, LRH: n=141) according to tumor type.

RESULTS

LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (93.3% vs. 93.1%, p=0.997; 96.2% vs. 97.5%, p=0.351) in total study population. LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.58-1.58; p=0.871) or OS rate (HR=1.37; 95% CI=0.65-2.89; p=0.409) by multivariable analysis. In the visible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (91.9% vs. 91.9%, p=0.933; 95.0% vs. 96.9%, p=0.276), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS or OS rate (p=0.804, p=0.324). In the invisible tumor subgroups, LRH and ARH also showed similar 5-year DFS and OS rates (97.3% vs. 97.1%, p=0.815; 100% vs. 99.5%, p=0.449), and LRH was not associated with worse 5-year DFS rate (p=0.723).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, whether the tumor is visible or not, the oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH among cervical cancer patients are comparable. This suggests that LRH may be suitable for stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm with visible or invisible tumors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Identifier: CHiCTR180017778.

摘要

目的

比较腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)与经腹根治性子宫切除术(ARH)治疗肿瘤最大径<2cm、FIGO 分期 IB1 期、肉眼可见或不可见肿瘤患者的 5 年无病生存率(DFS)和总生存率(OS)。

方法

回顾性比较了 2004 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月期间接受 ARH(n=899)或 LRH(n=585)治疗的 1484 例肿瘤最大径<2cm、最终病理为 IB1 期的宫颈癌患者的肿瘤学结局。根据肿瘤类型,患者被分为肉眼可见肿瘤亚组(ARH:n=668,LRH:n=444)和肉眼不可见肿瘤亚组(ARH:n=231,LRH:n=141)。

结果

LRH 和 ARH 在总研究人群中显示出相似的 5 年 DFS 和 OS 率(93.3% vs. 93.1%,p=0.997;96.2% vs. 97.5%,p=0.351)。多变量分析显示,LRH 与 5 年 DFS 率(HR=0.96;95%置信区间[CI]:0.58-1.58;p=0.871)或 OS 率(HR=1.37;95%CI:0.65-2.89;p=0.409)降低无关。在肉眼可见肿瘤亚组中,LRH 和 ARH 显示出相似的 5 年 DFS 和 OS 率(91.9% vs. 91.9%,p=0.933;95.0% vs. 96.9%,p=0.276),LRH 与 5 年 DFS 或 OS 率降低无关(p=0.804,p=0.324)。在肉眼不可见肿瘤亚组中,LRH 和 ARH 也显示出相似的 5 年 DFS 和 OS 率(97.3% vs. 97.1%,p=0.815;100% vs. 99.5%,p=0.449),LRH 与 5 年 DFS 率降低无关(p=0.723)。

结论

在肿瘤最大径<2cm、FIGO 分期 IB1 期的患者中,无论肿瘤是否可见,LRH 和 ARH 治疗宫颈癌患者的肿瘤学结局均相当。这表明 LRH 可能适用于肉眼可见或不可见肿瘤的肿瘤最大径<2cm、FIGO 分期 IB1 期的宫颈癌患者。

试验注册

国际临床试验注册平台标识符:CHiCTR180017778。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e8c5/7930457/d764610bf68f/jgo-32-e17-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验