Minimal-invasive or open approach for surgery of early cervical cancer: the treatment center matters.

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with early stage cervical cancer in dependence of surgical approach and treatment center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A population-based cohort study including women with early stage IA1-IIB2 cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy between January 2010 and December 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 5.6 years. After exclusions, 413 patients were eligible for analysis: 111 (26.9%) underwent minimal-invasive surgery (MIS) and 302 (73.1%) open surgery. Both treatment groups were well balanced regarding the clinical and pathological characteristics. The mean age of the patients was 51.0 years. MIS was associated with improved RFS and OS compared with the open surgery. The 5-year RFS rates were 89.2% in the MIS group and 73.4% in the open surgery group (p = 0.004). The 5-year OS rates were 93.7% in the MIS group and 81.8% in the open surgery group (p = 0.016). After adjustment for other prognostic covariates, the MIS was further associated with improved RFS (HR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.86; p = 0.015) but not with OS. Nevertheless, after adjustment for treatment center, the surgical approach was not associated with significant difference in RFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.31-1.19; p = 0.143). Overall survival of patients treated in university cancer centers was significantly increased compared to patients treated in non-university cancer centers. The treatment center remains a strong prognostic factor regarding RFS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.83; p = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.94; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment center but not the surgical approach was associated with the survival of patients treated with radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.