Surgical margin status in relation to surgical approach in the management of early-stage cervical Cancer: A Canadian cervical Cancer collaborative (4C) study.

Surgical margin status in women undergoing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is an important prognostic factor. We sought to determine whether close (<3 mm) and positive surgical margins are associated with surgical approach and survival. This is a national retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Patients with stage IA1/LVSI-Ib2(FIGO 2018) with lesions up to 4 cm at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2019 were included. Surgical approach included robotic/laparoscopic (LRH), abdominal (ARH) or combined laparoscopic-assisted vaginal/vaginal (LVRH) radical hysterectomy. Recurrence free survival(RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. 956 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical margins were as follows: negative (87.0%), positive (0.4%) or close <3 mm (6.8%), missing (5.8%). Most patients had squamous histology (46.9%); 34.6% had adenocarcinomas and 11.3% adenosquamous. Most were stage IB (75.1%) and 24.9% were IA. Mode of surgery included: LRH(51.8%), ARH (39.2%), LVRH (8.9%). Predictive factors for close/positive margins included stage, tumour diameter, vaginal involvement and parametrial extension. Surgical approach was not associated with margin status (p = 0.27). Close/positive margins were associated with a higher risk of death on univariate analysis (HR = non calculable for positive and HR = 1.83 for close margins, p = 0.017), but not significant for OS when adjusted for stage, histology, surgical approach and adjuvant treatment. There were 7 recurrences in patients with close margins (10.3%, p = 0.25). 71.5% with positive/close margins received adjuvant treatment. In addition, MIS was associated with a higher risk of death (OR = 2.39, p = 0.029). Surgical approach was not associated to close or positive margins. Close surgical margins were associated with a higher risk of death. MIS was associated with worse survival, suggesting that margin status may not be the driver of worse survival in these cases. • In patients with Stage Ia1-Ib2 cervical cancer, there was no association between surgical approach and margin status. • Close margins (<3 mm) had double the risk of death than negative margins, but not significant when adjusted for confounders. • In the total cohort, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated to worse overall survival. • Therefore surgical margin status may not be the driver of worse survival in minimally invasive radical hysterectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]