Evidence Hub

ROCC/GOG-3043: A randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open surgery for early-stage cervical cancer

M. Leitão, Kristin Bixel, Dana M. Chase, Allison Quick, Colleen McCormick, Destin Black, Peter C. Lim, R. Eskander et al.

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 2025

840 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Background: The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial is the only randomized trial to date addressing the role of surgical approach in cervical cancer; however, this noninferiority trial of minimally invasive surgery vs an open approach in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer did not meet its primary endpoint of 4.5-year disease-free survival and was terminated early due to significantly worse disease-specific survival, overall survival, and locoregional recurrence in the minimally invasive surgery cohort. Primary Objective: Our trial compares 3-year disease-free survival after robotic-assisted or abdominal radical or simple (in select cases) hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. Study Hypothesis: We hypothesize that disease-free survival is noninferior after robotic-assisted vs abdominal radical or simple hysterectomy. Trial Design: This multicenter, randomized noninferiority trial conducted through the Gynecologic Oncology Group has specified surgeon qualification criteria. It requires a pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in all patients prior to enrollment and will use 1:1 randomization to assign patients to robotic-assisted or abdominal hysterectomy. All surgeons must use specified tumor-containment techniques in both arms. It does not allow transcervical uterine manipulators. Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Patients with early-stage (2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages…

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: 840 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