Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2025
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Long-Term Survival in Patients With Low-Risk Cervical Cancer After Simple, Modified, or Radical Hysterectomy
Christopher M Tarney1,2, Chunqiao Tian1,2,3, Leslie M Randall1,4,5
1Gynecologic Cancer Center of Excellence, Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Importance:
Three-year pelvic recurrence rate in women with low-risk cervical carcinoma was not inferior following simple hysterectomy (SH) vs modified radical hysterectomy (MRH) or radical hysterectomy (RH) in the Simple Hysterectomy and Pelvic Node Assessment randomized clinical trial, but the survival analysis of the trial was underpowered.
Objective:
To evaluate long-term survival in low-risk cervical carcinoma following SH vs MRH or RH.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
This cohort study included women undergoing SH, MRH or RH in US Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities participating in the National Cancer Database who received a diagnosis between January 2010 and December 2017 of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA2 or IB1 squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix (≤2 cm) and clinically negative lymph nodes.
Exposure:
SH, MRH, or RH following diagnosis of stage IA2 or IB1 squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Survival was the primary end point, evaluated with and without propensity score balancing. Survival rates, survival distributions, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of death, and restricted mean survival times (RMST) were analyzed as of September 2024. Two multivariable models were fitted. Model 1 included the hysterectomy type and 9 baseline factors (age, comorbidity score, race and ethnicity, insurance status, treatment facility, stage, histologic subtype, tumor grade, and surgical approach). Model 2 included the model 1 variables plus 4 additional clinical factors (surgical margin, LVSI, pathologic LN metastasis, and adjuvant treatment).
Results:
This cohort study evaluated 2636 women (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [11.4] years; median [IQR] follow-up, 85 [64-110] months), including 982 with SH, 300 with MRH, 927 with traditional RH, and 427 with unspecified MRH or RH. Survival was similar following SH vs MRH or RH (7 year survival rate, 93.9%; 95% CI, 91.9%-95.4% vs 95.3%; 95% CI, 94.0%-96.3%%; P = .07) and SH vs MRH vs RH (7 year survival rate, 93.9%; 95% CI, 91.9%-95.4% vs 94.2%; 95% CI, 90.1%-96.7% vs 95.4%; 95% CI, 93.6%-96.6%; P = .15). Risk of death following either SH vs MRH or RH, SH vs RH, or MRH vs RH remained similar after adjusting for baseline covariates alone or baseline covariates plus clinical factors. Survival remained similar within subsets by age, comorbidity score, race and ethnicity, facility type, stage, histologic subtype, tumor grade, surgical approach, and year of diagnosis. Adjusted survival remained similar in patients with SH vs MRH or RH after propensity score balancing for baseline covariates (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.65; P = .31) with similar 3-year (98.3%; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.0% vs 97.6%; 95% CI, 96.6%-98.2%), 5-year (95.9%; 95% CI, 94.3%-97.1% vs 96.5%; 95% CI, 95.5%-97.3%), 7-year (94.5%; 95% CI, 92.5%-95.9% vs 95.1%; 95% CI, 93.7%-96.1%), and 10-year (89.8%; 95% CI, 86.3%-92.5% vs 91.7%; 95% CI, 89.4%-93.4%) survival rates. Sensitivity analysis for patients who received a diagnosis between 2010 and 2013 documented similar 10-year RMST following SH vs MRH or RH, SH vs RH, SH vs MRH, and MRH vs RH.
Conclusions And Relevance:
In this cohort study, long-term survival was similar following SH vs MRH or RH, supporting the use of SH in select patients with low-risk early-stage cervical carcinoma.
