Vrabie Elena-Mihaela, Eftimie Mihai-Adrian, Balescu Irina, Diaconu Camelia, Bacalbasa Nicolae
Department of Visceral Surgery, Center of Excellence in Translational Medicine, Fundeni Clinical Institute, 022328 Bucharest, Romania.
Department of Surgery, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050471 Bucharest, Romania.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Mar 28;61(4):620. doi: 10.3390/medicina61040620.
Recent studies have supported the non-inferiority of the minimally invasive treatment approach over the open approach. However, they have also underlined its inferiority regarding its oncological results, while preserving the short-term benefits. The direct effects of these results were represented by indication changes in international guidelines on the application of minimally invasive surgery for treating early-stage cervical cancer. Herein, a literature review, including studies between 1992 and 2017, was performed. The results show that the studies published during this period supported the non-inferiority of the minimally invasive treatment approach for early-stage cervical cancer compared with the open approach. However, the studies included were unicentric, non-randomized and relied on a reduced number of patients. The results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer [LACC] trial could not have been considered, since only studies published between 1992 and 2017 were included. This trial firmly supported the advantages of the minimally invasive approach in treating early-stage cervical cancer. The literature published after 2018 highlighted the necessity for new clinical studies, randomized and prospective ones, to cover the defects of this study and to verify (or not) its results. : the studies published after 2018 mainly focused on the deficiencies of the LACC trial and also on developing new methods that could improve this surgical technique, thus enhancing the safety of the minimally invasive approach in treating early-stage cervical cancer. However, none of the included studies succeeded to provide enough evidence to oppose the results obtained in the LACC trial. Therefore, in order to clarify the state of this surgical approach, the results of three ongoing randomized clinical trials are expected.
近期研究支持了微创治疗方法相对于开放手术方法的非劣效性。然而,这些研究也强调了其在肿瘤学结果方面的劣势,同时保留了短期益处。这些结果的直接影响表现为国际指南中关于应用微创手术治疗早期宫颈癌的适应症变化。在此,我们进行了一项文献综述,涵盖了1992年至2017年间的研究。结果表明,这一时期发表的研究支持了微创治疗方法对于早期宫颈癌相对于开放手术方法的非劣效性。然而,纳入的研究均为单中心、非随机的,且患者数量较少。由于仅纳入了1992年至2017年间发表的研究,因此无法考虑腹腔镜治疗宫颈癌[LACC]试验的结果。该试验坚定地支持了微创方法在治疗早期宫颈癌方面的优势。2018年后发表的文献强调了开展新的临床研究(随机和前瞻性研究)的必要性,以弥补本研究的缺陷并验证(或不验证)其结果。2018年后发表的研究主要集中在LACC试验的缺陷上,同时也致力于开发新的方法来改进这种手术技术,从而提高微创方法治疗早期宫颈癌的安全性。然而,纳入的研究均未成功提供足够的证据来反驳LACC试验所获得的结果。因此,为了阐明这种手术方法的现状,期待三项正在进行的随机临床试验的结果。