Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32502445›Full record

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.

Michael Frumovitz, Andreas Obermair, Robert L Coleman, Rene Pareja, Aldo Lopez, Reitan Ribero, David Isla, Gabriel Rendon, Marcus Q Bernardini, Alessandro Buda and 10 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00614211 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorQueensland Centre for Gynaecological CancerRan2008 to 2022Enrolled636ConditionsCervical CancerArmsTotal Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy, Total Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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 · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advances in cervical cancer: current insights and future directions.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Comparative study of tumorZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.

Michael FrumovitzDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: mfrumovitz@mdanderson.org.
Andreas ObermairQueensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Robert L ColemanDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Rene ParejaInstituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia; Clínica de Oncología Astorga, Medellín, Colombia.
Aldo LopezInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Lima, Peru.
Reitan RiberoErasto Gaertner Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil.
David IslaInstituto Nacional de Cancerología, Mexico City, Mexico.
Gabriel RendonInstituto de Cancerologia-Las Americas, Medellín, Colombia.
Marcus Q BernardiniPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alessandro BudaSan Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Renato Moretti-MarquezHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Centro de Oncologia e Hematologia, São Paulo, Brazil.
Albert ZevallosInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Lima, Peru.
Marcelo A VieiraBarretos Cancer Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tao ZhuInstitute of Cancer Research and Basic Medical Sciences of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Cancer Hospital of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Russell P LandSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
James NicklinSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Rebecca AsherNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kristy P RobledoNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Val GebskiNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Pedro T RamirezDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Queensland · AUInstituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas · PEUniversity of Sydney · AUAzienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo · ITHospital de Câncer de Barretos · BRHospital Erasto Gaertner · BRHospital Israelita Albert Einstein · BRInstituto de Cancerología Las Américas · COInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · COInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · MXNational Health and Medical Research Council · AUPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

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

Quality of LifeAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedCarcinoma, AdenosquamousCarcinoma, Squamous CellCost of IllnessDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHealth StatusHumansHysterectomyMental HealthMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm Recurrence, Local

Identifiers

PMID32502445
PMCPMC9762514
OpenAlexW3033099933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.