SUCCOR study: An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer

Luis Chiva, Vanna Zanagnolo, Denis Querleu, Nerea Martin-Calvo, Juan Arévalo-Serrano, Mihai Emil Cǎpîlna, Anna Fagotti, Ali Kucukmetin, Constantijne Mom, Galina Chakalova, Shamistan Aliyev, Mario Malzoni, Fabrice Narducci, Octavio Arencibia, Francesco Raspagliesi, Tayfun Toptas, David Cibula, Dilyara Kaidarova, Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli, Mariana TavaresDmytro Golub, Anna Myriam Perrone, Robert Poka, Dimitrios Tsolakidis, Goran Vujić, Marcin A. Jedryka, Petra L.M. Zusterzeel, Jogchum Jan Beltman, Frederic Goffin, Dimitrios Haidopoulos, Herman Haller, Robert Jach, Iryna Yezhova, Igor Berlev, Margarida Bernardino, Rasiah Bharathan, Maximilian Lanner, Minna M. Maenpaa, Vladyslav Sukhin, Jean Guillaume Feron, Robert Fruscio, Kersti Kukk, Jordi Ponce, Jose Angel Minguez, Daniel Vázquez-Vicente, Teresa Castellanos, Enrique Chacon, Juan Luis Alcazar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer has demonstrated in recent publications worse outcomes than open surgery. The primary objective of the SUCCOR study, a European, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study was to evaluate disease-free survival in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009) cervical cancer undergoing open vs minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. As a secondary objective, we aimed to investigate the association between protective surgical maneuvers and the risk of relapse. Methods We obtained data from 1272 patients that underwent a radical hysterectomy by open or minimally invasive surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) from January 2013 to December 2014. After applying all the inclusion-exclusion criteria, we used an inverse probability weighting to construct a weighted cohort of 693 patients to compare outcomes (minimally invasive surgery vs open). The first endpoint compared disease-free survival at 4.5 years in both groups. Secondary endpoints compared overall survival among groups and the impact of the use of a uterine manipulator and protective closure of the colpotomy over the tumor in the minimally invasive surgery group. Results Mean age was 48.3 years (range; 23-83) while the mean BMI was 25.7 kg/m 2 (range; 15-49). The risk of recurrence for patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery was twice as high as that in the open surgery group (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.15; P=0.001). Similarly, the risk of death was 2.42-times higher than in the open surgery group (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.60, P=0.005). Patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery using a uterine manipulator had a 2.76-times higher hazard of relapse (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.75 to 4.33; P<0.001) and those without the use of a uterine manipulator had similar disease-free-survival to the open surgery group (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.15; P=0.20). Moreover, patients that underwent minimally invasive surgery with protective vaginal closure had similar rates of relapse to those who underwent open surgery (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.59; P<0.52). Conclusions Minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer increased the risk of relapse and death compared with open surgery. In this study, avoiding the uterine manipulator and using maneuvers to avoid tumor spread at the time of colpotomy in minimally invasive surgery was associated with similar outcomes to open surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1269-1277
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Volume30
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2020

Cite this