Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging

Study ObjectiveTo compare outcomes after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer incorporating 2018 Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging.DesignA retrospective analysis.SettingA single teaching hospital.PatientsPatients after radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, IA2, or IB1 squamous, adenosquamous, or adenocarcinoma of the cervix between 2007 and 2018, mirroring the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial criteria.InterventionsThe use of MIS surgery for performing radical hysterectomy.Measurements and Main ResultsThe outcomes were compared between patients undergoing MIS vs open approaches. A total of 126 patients met the inclusion criteria. The approach was open in 44 patients (35%) and MIS in 82 patients (65%); 49% were laparoscopic and 51% were robotic. Distribution based on the 2009 FIGO staging showed 1 stage IA1 with lymphovascular invasion, 15 stage IA2, and 110 stage IB1 patients. Although not statistically significant, the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was higher in the open compared to the MIS group (95% vs 87%; p = .17), and the overall survival was higher in the open compared to the MIS group (97% vs 92%; p = .25).Fourteen patients whose disease recurred were Stage IB1 by FIGO 2009 staging; 11/14 were reclassified to a higher stage by 2018 FIGO staging (5/5 open, 6/9 MIS). Adjuvant therapy was recommended for all these patients based on the Sedlis criteria (10/14) or other risk factors (4/14). Despite this, only 1/9 of MIS patients whose disease recurred received adjuvant therapy compared with 3/5 patients whose disease recurred in the open group (p = .05).ConclusionIn a cohort of patients similar to that of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial, 2018 FIGO staging may be useful to refine indications for MIS radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer. However, disparate outcomes between MIS and open approaches may be explained by differences in compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for adjuvant therapy.