Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2020
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.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT00614211 (A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients With Early Stage Cervical Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients With Early Stage Cervical Cancer
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for cervical cancer: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Guideline
- Efficacy and safety analysis of non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer (IA2 ~ IB1): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Risk factors for ninety-day readmission following cervical surgery: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness comparisons of various therapies for FIGO stage IB2/IIA2 cervical cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Comparison of a submucosal and subserosal approach in ICG-guided laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer patients: long-term outcomes of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Complications, recurrence, and survival rates for endometrial and cervical cancer treated by minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Efficacy of laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy on stress response and urodynamic status in patients with early cervical cancer.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- ROCC/GOG-3043: a randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025Article
- The clinical practice and outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in primary malignant melanoma of the vagina and cervix patients: a retrospective cohort study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes by individuals with differentiated thyroid cancer who underwent minimal-access versus conventional open thyroidectomy: a real-world propensity score-matching study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Long-Term Survival in Patients With Low-Risk Cervical Cancer After Simple, Modified, or Radical Hysterectomy.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- The Polish Society of Gynecological Oncology Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer (v2024.0).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer: an overview of current trends.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Comparative study of tumorZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 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.
methodsThe 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.
findingsBetween 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]).
interpretationSince 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.
fundingMD Anderson Cancer Center and Medtronic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.