NCT00614211 · CITED IN SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer

An NCI or FDA source cites this study. A citation does not establish that it applies to an individual diagnosis.

Phase: NA
Status at capture: COMPLETED
Registry last update: 2023-04-18

The goal of this clinical research study is to compare the long-term outcomes of different surgical methods for the treatment of cervical cancer. The long-term outcome of a total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH) will be compared against laparoscopy. In this study, the laparoscopy will be done with or without robotic technology.

Open the original ClinicalTrials.gov record → · Download preserved record

What did the study report?

Outcomes, safety and baseline populations are separate source sections. Quality-of-life measures appear under their original outcome titles.

No posted result sections were captured. Registered plans do not establish that a treatment works.

Who could take part

eligibility Criteria: 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
healthy Volunteers: false
minimum Age: 18 Years
sex: FEMALE
std Ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT

Treatment arms and interventions

arm Groups

description
Total Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy
intervention Names
Procedure: Total Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy
label
1
type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
description
Total Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy
intervention Names
Procedure: Total Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy
label
2
type
EXPERIMENTAL

interventions

arm Group Labels
1
description
In a radical hysterectomy the uterus, the upper one to two centimetres of the vagina and the soft tissues around the cervix are excised.
name
Total Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy
other Names
TARH
Open radical hysterectomy
type
PROCEDURE
arm Group Labels
2
description
In a radical hysterectomy the uterus, the upper one to two centimetres of the vagina and the soft tissues around the cervix are excised.
name
Total Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy
other Names
TLRH
TRRH
Keyhole radical hysterectomy
type
PROCEDURE

Study design

allocation

RANDOMIZED

intervention Model

PARALLEL

masking Info

masking: NONE

primary Purpose

TREATMENT

Enrollment

count: 636
type: ACTUAL

Registered outcome plans (not posted results)

primary Outcomes

description
Compare treatment equivalence
measure
Disease free survival
time Frame
5 years from surgery

secondary Outcomes

description
date and localization of 1st recurrence as confirmed histologically - Compare patterns between groups
measure
Patterns of recurrence
time Frame
5 years from surgery
description
Compare costs between groups
measure
Costs
time Frame
6 months from surgery
description
Compare QoL between groups
measure
Quality of life Questionnaires
time Frame
6 months from surgery
description
Compare PFDI between groups
measure
Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire
time Frame
5 years from surgery
description
Compare between groups
measure
Overall survival
time Frame
5 years from surgery
description
Compare between groups
measure
Feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy
time Frame
Intra-operatively
description
Compare these between groups
measure
Intra-operative, peri-operative, post-operative and long term treatment related morbidity
time Frame
6 months from surgery

Full study description

brief Summary: The goal of this clinical research study is to compare the long-term outcomes of different surgical methods for the treatment of cervical cancer. The long-term outcome of a total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH) will be compared against laparoscopy. In this study, the laparoscopy will be done with or without robotic technology.
detailed Description: Primary Objective: To compare disease-free survival amongst patients who undergo a total laparoscopic (TLRH) or robotic radical hysterectomy (TRRH) verses those who undergo a total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH) for early stage cervical cancer. Secondary Objectives: * Compare patterns of recurrence between arms. * Compare treatment-associated morbidity within 6 months from surgery. * Compare the cost effectiveness of TLRH/TRRH versus TARH * Compare the impact on Quality of Life (QOL) between arms. * Assess pelvic floor function * Compare overall survival between arms * Determine the feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy in this group of patients RATIONALE FOR STUDY DESIGN Total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH) and pelvic lymph node dissection (± aortic lymph node dissection ± postoperative \[chemo-\] radiotherapy) is the current standard treatment for early cervical cancer. While this is an accepted effective treatment, a laparotomy is highly invasive, visibly scarring and is associated with tissue trauma, blood loss and a significant risk of wound and infectious adverse events . Additionally, radical hysterectomy by laparotomy is associated with an average hospital stay of approximately 5 to 7 days and an average recovery period (from surgery) of 5 to 6 weeks. Laparoscopic techniques have been demonstrated to be feasible and safe with previous retrospective studies on TLH showing encouraging results . In a number of retrospective and prospective, non-controlled series the incidence of treatment-related morbidity was less in patients who had a laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to patients who underwent a TAH . Retrospective data suggest that the recurrence rate and patterns of recurrence are similar in patients who had a laparoscopic or an open approach . Treatment recommendations ideally are based on prospective, randomized trials comparing the current standard technique (TARH) with the proposed better technique (TLRH). However, there are currently no prospective studies available which directly compare TLRH against the standard treatment of TARH in regards to disease-free or overall survival. The proposed clinical trial will be biphasic. The primary outcome variable in stage 1 will be feasibility of recruitment as determined by overall trial recruitment. Following completion of Stage 1, the data of this study will become the basis for assessing recurrence and disease-free survival in the Stage 2 design. RATIONALE FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE Retrospective studies suggest equivalency between the laparoscopic and open approaches to radical hysterectomy in regards to surgical specimens obtained and likely disease-free and overall survivals . Thus, quality of life could be seen as one of the most significant factors in recommending one approach over the other and therefore an extremely important endpoint for this protocol. In the GOG LAP-2 protocol , a trial evaluating a comparison between hysterectomy by laparotomy or laparoscopy, the investigators found equivalency adequacy of the two surgical approaches however a significant difference in short term quality of life favoring laparoscopy. As expected, patients who underwent laparoscopy had a faster return to baseline functioning compared with those patients who had undergone laparotomy which translated into improved short-term quality of life. By 6 months, however, patients in both cohorts were reporting equivalent quality of life parameters. Quality of life surveys employed with this Phase III clinical trial will encompass important endpoints such as postoperative pain and related symptoms using the MD Anderson Symptom Assessment Index (MDSAI), as well as cancer specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-Cx) and the general 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). RATIONALE FOR LYMPHATIC MAPPING Published experience with the techniques for lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node detection in women with cervical cancer has been very limited. To date, no single study has enrolled more than 100 patients undergoing lymphatic mapping as part of their surgical treatment for cervical cancer. In fact, the majority of studies report on less than 50 patients. In addition, this procedure has not yet been shown to be viable in a multi-institutional setting. The limitations of previously published reports are important as these techniques are associated with a significantly high learning curve with early procedures less successful than later ones. This study will provide us the opportunity to enroll large numbers of patients for validation of intraoperative lymphatic mapping in women with cervical cancer in an international, multi-institutional setting.

Source references

references

citation
Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, Ramirez PT. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):584-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.013.
pmid
18722970
type
BACKGROUND
citation
Ramirez PT, Robledo KP, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Ribeiro R, Lopez A, Yan X, Isla D, Moretti R, Bernardini MQ, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Coleman RL, Obermair A. LACC Trial: Final Analysis on Overall Survival Comparing Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2024 Aug 10;42(23):2741-2746. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.02335. Epub 2024 May 29.
pmid
38810208
type
DERIVED
citation
Tanaka T, Ueda S, Miyamoto S, Hashida S, Terada S, Konishi H, Kogata Y, Taniguchi K, Komura K, Ohmichi M. Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. Curr Oncol. 2022 Mar 24;29(4):2272-2283. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29040185.
pmid
35448159
type
DERIVED
citation
Frumovitz M, Obermair A, Coleman RL, Pareja R, Lopez A, Ribero R, Isla D, Rendon G, Bernardini MQ, Buda A, Moretti-Marquez R, Zevallos A, Vieira MA, Zhu T, Land RP, Nicklin J, Asher R, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Ramirez PT. 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. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jun;21(6):851-860. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4.
pmid
32502445
type
DERIVED
citation
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N, Isla D, Tamura M, Zhu T, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Nicklin JL, Coleman RL, Obermair A. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
pmid
30380365
type
DERIVED