• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

腹腔镜手术与开腹手术治疗ⅠB2/ⅡA2 期宫颈癌根治术的生存结局比较。

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.

机构信息

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

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, the Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.

出版信息

J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021 Apr;47(4):1516-1526. doi: 10.1111/jog.14693. Epub 2021 Feb 1.

DOI:10.1111/jog.14693
PMID:33527615
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-matching study. The differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between the LRH and ARH were compared under the conditions of real-world study and case-control matching (1:1 matching).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the outcomes of LRH (n = 580) and ARH (n = 1653) in 5-year OS and DFS (OS: 80.6% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.421; DFS: 78.6% vs. 80.7%, p = 0.376). After 1:1 matching, there was no difference in 5-year OS and DFS between LRH (n = 554) and ARH (n = 554) (OS: 80.4% vs. 84.5%, p = 0.993; DFS: 79.0% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.695). Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor for 5-year OS and DFS, and postoperative adjuvant therapy affected patient prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested that there was no difference in LRH (n = 313) and ARH (n = 1092) in 5-year OS or DFS in patients who underwent standard postoperative adjuvant therapy (OS: 83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.992; DFS: 79.0% vs. 82.5%, p = 0.323). After 1:1 pairing, the 5-year OS and DFS in LRH (n = 295) and ARH (n = 295) showed no difference. Before and after matching, the surgical approach was not an independent risk factor affecting the 5-year OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer without preoperative adjuvant therapy.

CLINICAL TRIALS

The ethical approval number is NFEC-2017-135, and the clinical research registration number is CHiCTR1800017778 (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

摘要

目的

研究无术前辅助治疗的 IB2/IIA2 期宫颈癌患者行腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)与经腹根治性子宫切除术(ARH)的长期肿瘤学结局。

方法

我们进行了一项多中心、回顾性、病例匹配研究。在真实世界研究和病例对照匹配(1:1 匹配)的条件下,比较了 LRH(n=580)和 ARH(n=1653)的总生存(OS)和无病生存(DFS)差异。

结果

LRH(n=580)和 ARH(n=1653)在 5 年 OS 和 DFS 方面无显著差异(OS:80.6% vs. 86.1%,p=0.421;DFS:78.6% vs. 80.7%,p=0.376)。1:1 匹配后,LRH(n=554)和 ARH(n=554)的 5 年 OS 和 DFS 无差异(OS:80.4% vs. 84.5%,p=0.993;DFS:79.0% vs. 78.8%,p=0.695)。匹配前后,手术方式均不是 5 年 OS 和 DFS 的独立危险因素,术后辅助治疗影响患者预后。进一步亚组分析表明,标准术后辅助治疗的患者中,LRH(n=313)和 ARH(n=1092)的 5 年 OS 或 DFS 无差异(OS:83.0% vs. 87.7%,p=0.992;DFS:79.0% vs. 82.5%,p=0.323)。1:1 配对后,LRH(n=295)和 ARH(n=295)的 5 年 OS 和 DFS 无差异。匹配前后,手术方式均不是影响 5 年 OS 和 DFS 的独立危险因素。

结论

无术前辅助治疗的 IB2/IIA2 期宫颈癌患者,腹腔镜手术与开腹手术的肿瘤学结局无差异。

临床试验

伦理审批号为 NFEC-2017-135,临床研究注册号为 CHiCTR1800017778(国际临床试验注册平台检索号,http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)。

相似文献

1
Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and abdominal surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer.腹腔镜手术与开腹手术治疗ⅠB2/ⅡA2 期宫颈癌根治术的生存结局比较。
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021 Apr;47(4):1516-1526. doi: 10.1111/jog.14693. Epub 2021 Feb 1.
2
[Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in stage I a2- II a2 cervical cancer: a matched cohort study].[I a2-II a2期宫颈癌腹腔镜与开腹根治性子宫切除术后的长期肿瘤学结局:一项配对队列研究]
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Dec;50(12):894-901.
3
Comparison of survival outcomes between radio-chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy in patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: long-term oncological outcome analysis in 37 Chinese hospitals.比较 IB1 期到 IIA2 期宫颈癌患者接受放化疗与根治性子宫切除术联合术后标准治疗的生存结局:37 家中国医院的长期肿瘤学结局分析。
BMC Cancer. 2020 Mar 6;20(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6651-8.
4
Comparative study on the oncological prognosis of laparoscopy and laparotomy for stage IIA1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma.腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗ⅡA1 期宫颈鳞癌的肿瘤学预后比较研究。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb;47(2):346-352. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.016. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
5
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.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。
J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Mar;32(2):e17. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e17. Epub 2020 Dec 14.
6
Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical adenosquamous carcinoma at stage IA2 to IIA2: A multicenter retrospective study.腹腔镜与开腹广泛子宫切除术治疗ⅠA2 期至ⅡA2 期宫颈腺鳞癌的对比:一项多中心回顾性研究。
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023 Jun;49(6):1592-1610. doi: 10.1111/jog.15633. Epub 2023 Mar 14.
7
Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm.比较肿瘤学结果和主要并发症在腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术和腹部根治性子宫切除术之间为阶段 IB1 宫颈癌与肿瘤大小小于 2 厘米。
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Aug;47(8):2125-2133. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.03.238. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
8
Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.机器人辅助根治性子宫切除术与腹式根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌的比较:一项多中心回顾性研究。
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 May;157(2):429-436. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.02.019. Epub 2020 Feb 15.
9
Hazard Ratio Analysis of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for IA1 With LVSI-IIA2 Cervical Cancer: Identifying the Possible Contraindications of Laparoscopic Surgery for Cervical Cancer.IA1伴淋巴血管间隙浸润(LVSI)-IIA2期宫颈癌腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术的风险比分析:确定腹腔镜手术治疗宫颈癌的可能禁忌证
Front Oncol. 2020 Jul 8;10:1002. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01002. eCollection 2020.
10
Comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for low-risk cervical cancer: a multicentre retrospective study.腹腔镜与腹式根治性子宫切除术治疗低危宫颈癌的比较:一项多中心回顾性研究。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Feb;305(2):449-458. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06185-6. Epub 2021 Aug 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Nerve-Sparing Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy (nsLRH) without Adjuvant Therapy in FIGO Stage IB3 Cervical Cancer Patients: Surgical Technique and Survival Outcomes.FIGO IB3期宫颈癌患者无需辅助治疗的保留神经腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(nsLRH):手术技术与生存结果
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Sep 30;16(19):3355. doi: 10.3390/cancers16193355.
2
A comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery in patients with specific locally advanced cervical cancer (stage IB3, IIA2, IIICr): trial protocol for a randomized controlled study (C-CRAL trial).特定局部晚期宫颈癌(IB3 期、IIA2 期、IIICr 期)患者同期放化疗与根治性手术的比较:一项随机对照研究(C-CRAL 试验)的试验方案。
J Gynecol Oncol. 2023 Sep;34(5):e64. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e64. Epub 2023 Jun 20.