Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer

NCT00614211CompletedNAINTERVENTIONAL

Summary

Key Facts

Lead Sponsor

Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer

Enrollment

636

Start Date

2008-01-01

Completion Date

2022-03-01

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Official Title

A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients With Early Stage Cervical Cancer

Interventions

Total Abdominal Radical HysterectomyTotal Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy

Conditions

Cervical Cancer

Eligibility

Age Range

18 Years+

Sex

FEMALE

Inclusion Criteria:

* Histologically confirmed primary adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix;
* Patients with Histologically confirmed stage IA1 (with lymph vascular invasion), stage IA2, or stage IB1 disease
* Patients undergoing either a Type II or III radical hysterectomy (Piver Classification)
* Patients with adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function:
* ECOG Performance Status of 0 or 1.
* Patient must be suitable candidates for surgery.
* Patients who have signed an approved Informed Consent
* Patients with a prior malignancy allowed if \> 5 years ago with no current evidence of disease
* Females, aged 18 years or older
* Negative serum pregnancy test within \<30 days of surgery in pre-menopausal women and women \< 2 years after the onset of menopause

Exclusion Criteria:

* Any histology other than adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix;
* Tumor size greater than 4 cm;
* FIGO stage II-IV;
* Patients with a history of pelvic or abdominal radiotherapy;
* Patients who are pregnant;
* Patients with contraindications to surgery;
* Patients with evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging studies, enlarged pelvic or aortic lymph nodes \> 2cm; or histologically positive lymph nodes
* Unfit for Surgery: serious concomitant systemic disorders incompatible with the study (at the discretion of the investigator);
* Patients unable to withstand prolonged lithotomy and steep Trendelenburg position
* Patient compliance and geographic proximity that do not allow adequate follow-up

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes

Disease free survival

Compare treatment equivalence

Time frame: 5 years from surgery

Secondary Outcomes

Patterns of recurrence

date and localization of 1st recurrence as confirmed histologically - Compare patterns between groups

Time frame: 5 years from surgery

Costs

Compare costs between groups

Time frame: 6 months from surgery

Quality of life Questionnaires

Compare QoL between groups

Time frame: 6 months from surgery

Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire

Compare PFDI between groups

Time frame: 5 years from surgery

Overall survival

Compare between groups

Time frame: 5 years from surgery

Feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy

Compare between groups

Time frame: Intra-operatively

Intra-operative, peri-operative, post-operative and long term treatment related morbidity

Compare these between groups

Time frame: 6 months from surgery

Locations

Greater Baltimore Medical Centre, Baltimore, United States

Women's Cancer Centre Nevada, Las Vegas, United States

St Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, United States

Peggy and Charles Stephenson Oklahoma Cancer Center, Oklahoma City, United States

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States

University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States

Misericordia Hospital, Córdoba, Argentina

The Wesley Hospital, Auchenflower, Australia

Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, Australia

Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia

Mater Health Services, South Brisbane, Australia

The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Australia

Saint John of God, Subiaco, Australia

Erastus Gaertner Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil

Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil

Instituto Brasileiro de Controlle do Cancer, Brás, Brazil

Albert Einstein Hospital, Morumbi, Brazil

University Hospital Pleven Center of Oncology Gynaecology, Pleven, Bulgaria

Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada

The First Affilated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China

Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China

The First Affliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China

Institito De Cancerologia Clinica Las Americas, Antioquia, Colombia

Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy

San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

Instituto Nacional de Cencerologia, Tlalpan, Mexico

Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru

Gyneco-Oncologico Hospital HIMA, Caguas, Puerto Rico

Korea Cancer Hospital, Goyang-si, South Korea

Seoul National University - Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ihwa-dong, South Korea

ASAN Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

Linked Papers

2024-05-29

LACC Trial: Final Analysis on Overall Survival Comparing Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The aim of this study was to compare overall survival between open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy with participants followed for 4.5 years. The primary objective was to evaluate whether minimally invasive surgery was noninferior in disease-free survival (DFS) to abdominal radical hysterectomy. Secondary outcomes included overall survival. Sample size was based on DFS of 90% at 4.5 years and 7.2% noninferiority margin for minimally invasive surgery. A total of 631 patients were enrolled: 319 assigned to minimally invasive and 312 to open surgery. Of these, 289 (90.6%) patients underwent minimally invasive surgery and 274 (87.8%) patients open surgery. At 4.5 years, DFS was 85.0% in the minimally invasive group and 96% in the open group (difference of –11.1; 95% CI, –15.8 to –6.3; P = .95 for noninferiority). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower rate of DFS compared with open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 3.91 [95% CI, 2.02 to 7.58]; P &lt; .001). Rate of overall survival at 4.5 years was 90.6% versus 96.2% for the minimally invasive and open surgery groups, respectively (HR for death of any cause = 2.71 [95% CI, 1.32 to 5.59]; P = .007). Given higher recurrence rate and worse overall survival with minimally invasive surgery, an open approach should be standard of care.

Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

In the phase 3 LACC trial and a subsequent population-level review, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was shown to be associated with worse disease-free survival and higher recurrence rates than was open radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Here, we report the results of a secondary endpoint, quality of life, of the LACC trial. The LACC trial was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 33 centres worldwide. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2, or IB1 adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who were scheduled to have a type 2 or 3 radical hysterectomy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive open or minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. Randomisation was done centrally using a computerised minimisation program, stratified by centre, disease stage according to FIGO guidelines, and age. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of the LACC trial was disease-free survival at 4·5 years, and quality of life was a secondary endpoint. Eligible patients completed validated quality-of-life and symptom assessments (12-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervical [FACT-Cx], EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]) before surgery and at 1 and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery (FACT-Cx was also completed at additional timepoints up to 54 months after surgery). Differences in quality of life over time between treatment groups were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who had surgery and completed at least one baseline (pretreatment) and one follow-up (at any timepoint after surgery) questionnaire, using generalised estimating equations. The LACC trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00614211. Between Jan 31, 2008, and June 22, 2017, 631 patients were enrolled; 312 assigned to the open surgery group and 319 assigned to the minimally invasive surgery group. 496 (79%) of 631 patients had surgery completed at least one baseline and one follow-up quality-of-life survey and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients in the open surgery group and 252 [79%] of 319 participants in the minimally invasive surgery group). Median follow-up was 3·0 years (IQR 1·7-4·5). At baseline, no differences in the mean FACT-Cx total score were identified between the open surgery (129·3 [SD 18·8]) and minimally invasive surgery groups (129·8 [19·8]). No differences in mean FACT-Cx total scores were identified between the groups 6 weeks after surgery (128·7 [SD 19·9] in the open surgery group vs 130·0 [19·8] in the minimally invasive surgery group) or 3 months after surgery (132·0 [21·7] vs 133·0 [22·1]). Since recurrence rates are higher and disease-free survival is lower for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than for open surgery, and postoperative quality of life is similar between the treatment groups, gynaecological oncologists should recommend open radical hysterectomy for patients with early stage cervical cancer. MD Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic.

Linked Investigators