KCA
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Original Article
- Gynecologic cancer
- Impact of the Learning Curve on the Survival of Abdominal or Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
- Lan Ying Li, Lan Ying Wen, Sun Hee Park, Eun Ji Nam, Jung Yun Lee, Sunghoon Kim, Young Tae Kim, Sang Wun Kim
- Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53(1):243-251. Published online October 12, 2020
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.063
-
Abstract
PDF
Supplementary Material
PubReader
ePub - Purpose
The objective of this study was to define the learning curve required to attain satisfactory oncologic outcomes of cervical cancer patients who were undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy, and to analyze the correlation between the learning curve and tumor size.
Materials and Methods
Cervical cancer patients (stage IA-IIA) who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n=280) or minimal invasive radical hysterectomy (n=282) were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was evaluated using cumulative sum of 5-year recurrence rates. Survival outcomes were analyzed based on the operation period (“learning period,” P1 vs. “skilled period,” P2), operation mode, and tumor size.
Results
The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates between open and minimally invasive groups were 91.8% and 89.0% (p=0.098) and 96.1% and 97.2% (p=0.944), respectively. The number of surgeries for learning period was 30 and 60 in open and minimally invasive group, respectively. P2 had better 5-year disease-free survival than P1 after adjusting for risk factors (hazard ratio, 0.392; 95% confidence interval, 0.210 to 0.734; p=0.003). All patients with tumors < 2 cm had similar 5-year disease-free survival regardless of operation mode or learning curve. Minimally invasive group presented lower survival rates than open group when tumors ≥ 2 cm in P2. Preoperative conization improved disease-free survival in patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm, especially in minimally invasive group.
Conclusion
Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy required more cases than open group to achieve acceptable 5-year disease-free survival. When tumors ≥ 2 cm, the surgeon’s proficiency affected survival outcomes in both groups. -
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
- Effect of uterine manipulator on stage IB1 to IIA1 cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study
Wanying Bao, Xinlin He, Yue Huang, Aoshuang Xing, Zhengyu Li
Gynecologic Oncology.2026; 204: 27. CrossRef - Meta-analysis of curative effect of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy with primary chemo-radiation in patients with cervical cancer
J. Pan, H. Hang, Q. Hu
International Journal of Radiation Research.2025; 23(1): 185. CrossRef - Assessment of ESGO Quality Indicators and Factors Associated with Recurrence Following Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
María Espías-Alonso, Mikel Gorostidi, Ignacio Zapardiel, Myriam Gracia
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(19): 7041. CrossRef - Radical Hysterectomy With Preoperative Conization in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis
Xinbin Zhu, Lele Ye, Yunfeng Fu, Bingbing You, Weiguo Lu
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.2024; 31(3): 193. CrossRef - Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review
Atsushi Fusegi, Hiroyuki Kanao, Shiho Tsumura, Atsushi Murakami, Akiko Abe, Yoichi Aoki, Hidetaka Nomura
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Association of Hospital Surgical Volume With Survival in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Treated With Radical Hysterectomy
Nicolò Bizzarri, Lukáš Dostálek, Luc R. C. W. van Lonkhuijzen, Diana Giannarelli, Aldo Lopez, Henrik Falconer, Denis Querleu, Ali Ayhan, Sarah H. Kim, David Isla Ortiz, Jaroslav Klat, Fabio Landoni, Juliana Rodriguez, Ranjit Manchanda, Jan Kosťun, Pedro T
Obstetrics & Gynecology.2023; 141(1): 207. CrossRef - Learning Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: Are We Facing an Emerging Situation?
Graziella Moufawad, Antonio Simone Laganà, Nassir Habib, Vito Chiantera, Andrea Giannini, Federico Ferrari, Amerigo Vitagliano, Luigi Della Corte, Giuseppe Bifulco, Zaki Sleiman
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(3): 2053. CrossRef - Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study
Charalampos Varnava, Philipp Wiebringhaus, Tobias Hirsch, Alexander Dermietzel, Maximilian Kueckelhaus
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(8): 2894. CrossRef - A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter
Si Sun, Jing Cai, Ruixie Li, Yujia Wang, Jing Zhao, Yuhui Huang, Linjuan Xu, Qiang Yang, Zehua Wang
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.2022; 306(3): 623. CrossRef - Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Mengting Zhang, Wei Dai, Yuexiu Si, Yetan Shi, Xiangyuan Li, Ke Jiang, Jingyi Shen, Liying Ying
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef - Assessment of ESGO Quality Indicators in Cervical Cancer Surgery: A Real-World Study in a High-Volume Chinese Hospital
Yan Ding, Xuyin Zhang, Junjun Qiu, Jianfeng Zhang, Keqin Hua
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef - Trends in Surgical Morbidity and Survival Outcomes for Radical Hysterectomy in West China: An 11-Year Retrospective Cohort Study
Huining Jing, Ying Yang, Yinxia Liu, Peijun Zou, Zhengyu Li
Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef - Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
Tomohito Tanaka, Shoko Ueda, Shunsuke Miyamoto, Sousuke Hashida, Shinichi Terada, Hiromi Konishi, Yuhei Kogata, Kohei Taniguchi, Kazumasa Komura, Masahide Ohmichi
Current Oncology.2022; 29(4): 2272. CrossRef - Open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: A two-center retrospective cohort study with pathologic review of usual-type adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma
Yeorae Kim, Se Ik Kim, Hyojin Kim, Maria Lee, Hee Seung Kim, Kidong Kim, Hyun Hoon Chung, Jae Hong No, Yong Beom Kim, Jae-Weon Kim, Noh Hyun Park, Yong-Sang Song, Cheol Lee, Dong Hoon Suh
Gynecologic Oncology.2022; 167(1): 28. CrossRef - Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
Fuyun Zhang, Xiaomei Song
American Journal of Clinical Oncology.2022; 45(11): 465. CrossRef - Surgical Approach and Use of Uterine Manipulator Are Not Associated with LVSI in Surgery for Early-stage Cervical Cancer
Yinxia Liu, Shuying Huang, Xiu Ming, Huining Jing, Zhengyu Li
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.2021; 28(9): 1573. CrossRef - Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith, Tiffany Nicole Jones, Diana Miao, Amanda Nickles Fader
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.2021; 28(3): 544. CrossRef - The Surgeon’s Proficiency Affected Survival Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 851 Patients
Ying Yang, Yue Huang, Zhengyu Li
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef - MicroRNA-300 Inhibits the Proliferation and Metastasis of Cervical Cancer Cells via Posttranscriptional Suppression of G Protein-Coupled Receptor 34 (GPR34)
Mei Wang, Ying Tian, Lin Miao, Wenxia Zhao, Antonio Raffone
Journal of Oncology.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
- Effect of uterine manipulator on stage IB1 to IIA1 cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study
- 9,864 View
- 148 Download
- 19 Crossref
First
Prev
