The findings from these studies appear valid and should be discussed with patients.
The findings raise a major question: Why has minimally invasive surgery (MIS) led to worse survival rates than laparotomy? Several possible explanations can be hypothesized: The uterine manipulator used in MIS led to local spread of cancer cells; MIS involves a learning curve and initial attempts at MIS did not remove enough of the tumor; and MIS led to increased exposure of the peritoneal cavity to the cancer. The findings also raise another question: Why has MIS for cervical cancer performed less well than MIS for cancers from other organs, such as endometrial and prostate?
We also need to place these findings in context. Radical hysterectomy using MIS has shown clear advantages over laparotomy in terms of complications and blood loss. I analyzed data from the U.S. National Inpatient Sample for 2015, and I calculated that, for every 1,000 patients treated for early-stage cervical cancer by MIS radical hysterectomy, compared with laparotomy, the MIS approach would produce 70 fewer blood transfusions, 55 fewer medical complications, 35 fewer infectious complications, six fewer surgical complications, and two fewer deaths during the same hospitalization.
The overall survival results from the LACC trial calculate out to 4.75 added deaths per year for every 1,000 patients treated with MIS, compared with laparoscopy. But the National Inpatient Sample data suggest that MIS cuts mortality by about two deaths per year per 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy, and mortality data from a different analysis (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127[1]:11-7) suggest that MIS might prevent six deaths annually for every 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy. Overall, these three sets of findings suggest roughly comparable mortality outcomes from MIS and laparotomy, but with MIS having the bonus of fewer complications and less need for transfusions.
The cautions and concerns raised by the LACC trial and Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis of observational data cannot be easily dismissed. We need to figure out why the results from both studies show worse survival and recurrence rates with MIS, and we need to identify whether subgroups of patients exist who might clearly benefit from either the MIS or open-surgery approach.
Shitanshu Uppal, MD , is a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He made these comments as designated discussant for the two studies. He had no disclosures.
