Advertisement

Interpretation and Implications of LACC Trial

  • Subramanyeshwar Thammineedi Rao
  • Syed Nusrath
  • R. Rajagopalan IyerEmail author
  • Sujit Chyau Patnaik
  • Ajesh Raj Saksena
  • Prasanth Vanzar
  • Srijan Shukla
Review article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Background

LACC trial is a multicentre randomized controlled noninferiority trial. It evaluated the oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery and open abdominal radical hysterectomy among women with early-stage cervical cancer. The results showed lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) arm.

Discussion

The results of the LACC trial were surprising and contrary to the outcomes in various other retrospective studies which compared outcomes in MIS and open arms for carcinoma cervix. We write this review article to rebut the LACC trial and point out few shortcomings of the trial. These may explain the outcomes.

The surgeon proficiency criteria for MIS RH in the trial are inadequate. Surgeons were required to submit two unedited operative videos of MIS radical hysterectomy and outcomes of at least ten cases. The routine use of a uterine manipulator causes tumour fragmentation and is against the norms of oncosurgery. Missing histopathological data in almost a third of cases and inadequate follow-up data add to the lacunae. We think the inferior oncological outcomes in MIS arm are not due to MIS per se but due to these factors. Great caution is required in interpreting the results of the LACC trial.

Conclusions

The authors of LACC trial mention that the results cannot be generalized to low-risk patients who still can undergo laparoscopic surgery. We recommend further trials to address the issue of safety of minimal access surgery in the treatment of early-stage carcinoma cervix. MIS radical hysterectomy can still be considered an oncologically safe treatment option in trained hands.

Keywords

LACC trail Lacunae The road ahead 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;15(5):584–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takeda N, Sakuragi N, Takeda M, Okamoto K, Kuwabara M, Negishi H, Oikawa M, Yamamoto R, Yamada H, Fujimoto S. Multivariate analysis of histopathologic prognostic factors for invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(12):1144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Metindir J, Bilir G. Prognostic factors affecting disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic-paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(1):28–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Memarzadeh S, Natarajan S, Dandade DP, Ostrzega N, Saber PA, Busuttil A, Lentz SE, Berek JS. Lymphovascular and perineural invasion in the parametria: a prognostic factor for early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):612–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Outcomes after radical hysterectomy according to tumour size divided by 2-cm interval in patients with early cervical cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1201–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Fusco A, Malzoni C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1316–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):903–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ditto A, Martinelli F, Bogani G, Gasparri ML, Di Donato V, Zanaboni F, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic approach for type B radical hysterectomy: a comparison with open surgical operations. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):34–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee EJ, Kang H, Kim DH. A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):83–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Erati M, Casarin J, Pinelli C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):857–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, Favini G, Ferri L, Mangioni C. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9077):535–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jin YM, Liu SS, Chen J, Chen YN, Ren CC. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0193033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA, Holloway RW. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(4):513–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS. Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer: comparison of the first 50 and second 50 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(8):1459–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reade C, Hauspy J, Schmuck ML, Moens F. Characterizing the learning curve for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: buddy operating as a technique for accelerating skill acquisition. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(5):930–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kitahara S, Walsh C, Frumovitz M, Malpica A, Silva EG. Vascular pseudoinvasion in laparoscopic hysterectomy specimens for endometrial carcinoma: a grossing artifact? Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lim S, Kim HS, Lee KB, Yoo CW, Park SY, Seo SS. Does the use of a uterine manipulator with an intrauterine balloon in total laparoscopic hysterectomy facilitate tumor cell spillage into the peritoneal cavity in patients with endometrial cancer? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sonoda Y, Zerbe M, Smith A, Lin O, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ. High incidence of positive peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80:378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krizova A, Clarke BA, Bernardini MQ, et al. Histologic artifacts in abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy specimens:a blinded, retrospective review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kong TW, Chang SJ, Piao X, et al. Patterns of recurrence and survival after abdominal versus laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mo X, Yang Y, Lai H, Xiao J, He K, Chen J, Lin Y. Does carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum enhance wound metastases following laparoscopic abdominal tumor surgery? A meta-analysis of 20 randomized control studies. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(8):7351–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bentley JR. Minimally-invasive radical hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix: the perspective of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(2):143–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hillemanns P, Brucker S, Holthaus B, et al. Comment on the LACC trial investigating Early stage Cervical Cancer by the Uterus Commission of the Study Group for Gynecologic Oncology (AGO) and the Study Group for Gynecologic Endoscopy (AGE) of the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018;78(8):766–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park JY, Nam JH. How should gynecologic oncologists react to the unexpected results of LACC trial? J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leitao MM Jr. The LACC trial: has minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer been dealt a knockout punch? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(7):1248–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kimmig R, Ind T. Minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer: consequences for the treatment after LACC study. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(4):e75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Basavatarakam Indo-American Cancer Institute and Research CentreHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations