Minimally Invasive Therapy Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Management of Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Официальное название

Minimally Invasive Therapy Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy (MITOR) for Management of Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Обзор

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection (+/- aortic lymph node dissection) is the standard treatment for early stage cervical cancer. And minimally invasive surgery has been successfully and safely demonstrated in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. This study aims to compare total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and total abdominal radical hysterectomy in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival. Rates and characteristics of recurrence, incidence of complications and morbidity, impact on quality of life and cost-effectiveness will also be determined.

Подробное описание

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection (+/- aortic lymph node dissection) is the standard treatment for early stage cervical cancer. Laparotomy has been the surgical method of choice for a considerable length of time. While it is an accepted effective treatment, laparotomy is highly invasive and is associated with increased risk of tissue trauma, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and longer hospital stay.

Minimally invasive surgery has been successfully and safely demonstrated in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. Retrospective studies have shown that oncologic outcomes in terms of recurrence rates and patterns of recurrence are similar in patients who had a laparoscopic or an open approach to radical hysterectomy. There is reduction of overall postoperative complications, treatment-related morbidity and length of hospital stay. However, there are two studies stating poorer survival of women treated by minimally invasive surgery. An epidemiologic study using two large US databases (National Cancer Database and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database) showed a reduction in overall survival of patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Furthermore, in a prospective, multi-center, open-label randomized clinical trial, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (both total laparoscopic and total robotic radical hysterectomy) was associated with significantly worse disease-free survival and overall survival compared to open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early stage cervical cancer. Recurrence rates were also higher in the minimally invasive group.

This study aims to compare total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and total abdominal radical hysterectomy in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival. Rates and characteristics of recurrence, incidence of complications and morbidity, impact on quality of life and cost-effectiveness will also be determined.

Вмешательства

• Процедура radical hysterectomy
  To compare disease-free survival and overall survival of patients with early stage cervical cancer undergoing total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus total abdominal radical hysterectomy

Первичные конечные точки

• Disease-Free Survival [Срок оценки: 5 year]
• Overall Survival [Срок оценки: 5 year]

Вторичные конечные точки (3)

• Recurrence Pattern [Срок оценки: 5 years]
• Intraoperative and Postoperative Complications [Срок оценки: 1 year]
• Impact on Quality of Life [Срок оценки: 6 months]

Критерии участия

Критерии включения

• Patients with histologically confirmed primary squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix
• Patients with histologically confirmed stage IAI (+) LVSI, IA2, IB1, IB2 and IIA1 disease (TNM and 2018 FIGO staging for carcinoma of the uterine cervix)
• Patients undergoing a Type II/Type III radical hysterectomy (Piver-Rutledge Classification) or Type B/Type C radical hysterectomy (Querleu-Morrow Classification)
• Patients with adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function using Standard International Units 4.1 WBC > 3.0 x 109 cells/L 4.2 Platelets > 100 x 109 cells/L 4.3 Creatinine < 2.0 mg/dL 4.4 Bilirubin < 1.5 x upper normal limit and AST/SGOT or ALT/SGPT < 3 x upper normal limit
• ECOG Performance Status of 0 or 1
• Patients who have signed an approved Informed Consent
• Patients with a prior malignancy if > 5 years ago with no current evidence of disease
• Females aged 18 years or older
• Negative serum pregnancy test ≤ 30 days of surgery in premenopausal women and women < 2 years after the onset of menopause

Критерии исключения

• Patients with any histology other than squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix
• Stage IB3, IIA2-IV (TNM and 2018 FIGO staging for carcinoma of the uterine cervix)
• Patients with evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging studies (CT Scan, MRI or PET CT Scan), enlarged pelvic or aortic lymph nodes > 2cm, or histologically positive lymph nodes
• Patients with a history of pelvic or abdominal radiotherapy
• Uterine size larger than 12 cm in length
• Patients with contraindications to surgery or who are unfit for surgery with serious concomitant systemic disorders incompatible with the study (at the discretion of the investigator)

Критерии приведены из реестра в оригинале (на английском). Окончательную оценку соответствия проводит исследовательский центр.

Здоровые добровольцы: Нет

Дизайн исследования

Распределение

Рандомизированное

Модель

Параллельные группы

Маскирование

Открытое

Основная цель

Лечение

Центры проведения

Тайвань · 1 центр

• Chang Gung Memorial Hospital — Taoyuan

Публикации

• Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015 Nov 24;15:928. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1818-4. PMID 26596955
• Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):457-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009. Epub 2015 Jun 6. PMID 26056752
• Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, Seagle BL, Alexander A, Barber EL, Rice LW, Wright JD, Kocherginsky M, Shahabi S, Rauh-Hain JA. Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1905-1914. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804923. Epub 2018 Oct 31. PMID 30379613
• Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N, Isla D, Tamura M, Zhu T, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Nicklin JL, Coleman RL, Obermair A. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. Epub 2018 Oct 31. PMID 30380365
• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. Epub 2018 Sep 12. PMID 30207593
• Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12611. PMID 30306584
• Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026. Epub 2018 Oct 30. PMID 30389105
• Yan X, Li G, Shang H, Wang G, Han Y, Lin T, Zheng F. Twelve-year experience with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Mar;120(3):362-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.033. Epub 2010 Dec 18. PMID 21168904

Идентификаторы

NCT: NCT04999696 · 201902269A3

Первоисточники (государственные реестры)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, США)

Открыть это исследование на ClinicalTrials.gov ↗