Evidence Hub

Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial

H. Falconer, K. Pálsdóttir, K. Stålberg, P. Dahm Kähler, U. Ottander, E. Lundin, L. Wijk, R. Kimmig et al.

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 2019

768 participants · 153 citations

Abstract

Background Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy represents the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrate that minimally invasive surgery is inferior to laparotomy with regards to disease-free and overall survival. Primary Objective To investigate the oncologic safety of robot-assisted surgery for early-stage cervical cancer as compared with standard laparotomy. Study Hypothesis Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is non-inferior to laparotomy in regards to recurrence-free survival with the advantage of fewer post-operative complications and superior patient-reported outcomes. Trial Design Prospective, multi-institutional, international, open-label randomized clinical trial. Consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer will be assessed for eligibility and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. Institutional review board approval will be required from all participating institutions. The trial is coordinated from Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Women over 18 with cervical cancer FIGO (2018) stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous will be included. Women are not eligible if they have evidence of metastatic disease, serious co-morbidity, or a secondary invasive neoplasm in the past 5 years. Primary Endpoint Recurrence-free survival at 5 years between women…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 768 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free