Oncological outcomes after vaginal and robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy in patients with cervical cancer - A single-center prospective cohort study

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109671
Sinor Soltanizadeh, Signe Frahm Bjørn, Ligita Paskeviciute Frøding, Berit Jul Mosgaard, Claus Høgdall
{"title":"Oncological outcomes after vaginal and robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy in patients with cervical cancer - A single-center prospective cohort study","authors":"Sinor Soltanizadeh,&nbsp;Signe Frahm Bjørn,&nbsp;Ligita Paskeviciute Frøding,&nbsp;Berit Jul Mosgaard,&nbsp;Claus Høgdall","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aims of this study are to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy (RART) compared with radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT) for localized early-stage cervical cancer in a national cohort.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>RVT was introduced in 2003 in Denmark and nationally centralized to Copenhagen Univeristy Hospital. In 2014 the procedure advanced to a robotic-assisted approach. Perioperative and oncological data has been prospectively reported to the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database (DGCD) which is continuously developed and updated. All patients undergoing radical trachelectomy were included in this prospective cohort study. Data was extracted from DGCD and manually validated through electronic medical journals and The Danish Pathology Registry.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 206 patients underwent radical trachelectomy, with 78 patients undergoing RART and 128 patients undergoing RVT. No significant differences were observed in the microscopic free margins of the trachelectomy specimens. A total of seven (5.5%) patients undergoing RVT and two (2.6%) patients undergoing RART had recurrences (p = 0.403). No significant differences in recurrence-free survival were found between the groups, both in the unadjusted (HR 0.51 (0.11–2.47)) and adjusted analyses (HR 0.80 (0.16–3.96)).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this large single-center cohort, oncological safety of RART is equal to RVT for patients with localized cervical cancer and a fertility desire.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 109671"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074879832500099X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aims of this study are to evaluate the oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy (RART) compared with radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT) for localized early-stage cervical cancer in a national cohort.

Methods

RVT was introduced in 2003 in Denmark and nationally centralized to Copenhagen Univeristy Hospital. In 2014 the procedure advanced to a robotic-assisted approach. Perioperative and oncological data has been prospectively reported to the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database (DGCD) which is continuously developed and updated. All patients undergoing radical trachelectomy were included in this prospective cohort study. Data was extracted from DGCD and manually validated through electronic medical journals and The Danish Pathology Registry.

Results

A total of 206 patients underwent radical trachelectomy, with 78 patients undergoing RART and 128 patients undergoing RVT. No significant differences were observed in the microscopic free margins of the trachelectomy specimens. A total of seven (5.5%) patients undergoing RVT and two (2.6%) patients undergoing RART had recurrences (p = 0.403). No significant differences in recurrence-free survival were found between the groups, both in the unadjusted (HR 0.51 (0.11–2.47)) and adjusted analyses (HR 0.80 (0.16–3.96)).

Conclusions

In this large single-center cohort, oncological safety of RART is equal to RVT for patients with localized cervical cancer and a fertility desire.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宫颈癌患者阴道和机器人辅助根治性气管切除术后的肿瘤预后-一项单中心前瞻性队列研究
本研究的目的是评估机器人辅助根治性气管切除术(RART)与阴道根治性气管切除术(RVT)治疗局限性早期宫颈癌的肿瘤学结果。方法2003年在丹麦引进srvt,并在全国集中到哥本哈根大学医院。2014年,这一过程发展到机器人辅助的方法。围手术期和肿瘤数据已前瞻性地报告到丹麦妇科癌症数据库(DGCD),该数据库不断发展和更新。所有接受根治性气管切除术的患者都纳入了这项前瞻性队列研究。从DGCD中提取数据,并通过电子医学期刊和丹麦病理学登记处手工验证。结果206例患者行根治性气管切除术,其中78例行RART, 128例行RVT。气管切除标本的显微自由缘无明显差异。7例(5.5%)RVT患者和2例(2.6%)RART患者复发(p = 0.403)。两组间无复发生存率均无显著差异,未调整分析(HR 0.51(0.11-2.47))和调整分析(HR 0.80(0.16-3.96))均无显著差异。结论在这个大型单中心队列中,对于有生育愿望的局限性宫颈癌患者,RART的肿瘤安全性与RVT相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Tumour localization and oncological outcomes in nonuterine leiomyosarcoma of the abdomen and pelvis Factors influencing surgical decision-making in breast cancer: A multicenter study in Japan The utility of large language models in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A systematic review Global burden, trends, and attributable risk factors of women's cancers with projection to 2050: Results from the GLOBOCAN 2022 and global burden of disease study 2021 Microwave ablation versus surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: A propensity score–based analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1