LACC trial

Does minimally invasive radical hysterectomy preserve survival compared with open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer?

Population and treatment

631 patients with early-stage cervical cancer eligible for radical hysterectomy.

Intervention vs comparator: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy vs open abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Registry: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=LACC+trial+minimally+invasive+open+radical+hysterectomy

Results

4.5-year DFS 86.0% minimally invasive vs 96.5% open; HR for recurrence or death 3.74 (95% CI 1.63–8.58). 3-year OS 93.8% vs 99.0%; HR for death 6.00 (95% CI 1.77–20.30).

Disease-free survival · 4.5 years

NNT: NCT00614211

NNH not calculated without a defensible fixed-time excess-harm risk. Never derive NNT from median survival or HR alone.

Toxicity and treatment burden

96.5

Full grade 3–5 toxicity, discontinuation, QoL and treatment exposure require primary report/supplement extraction before full clinical signoff. Missing rates are not imputed.

Interpretation and limitations

Randomized evidence favoured open surgery; minimally invasive radical hysterectomy should not be presumed oncologically equivalent. Confirm current surgical standards and patient eligibility.

Distinguish prespecified from exploratory subgroups, mature from immature endpoints, and superiority from non-inferiority. Verify current guidelines and individual eligibility.

Primary source

Primary publication / authoritative source

Source-level QoL, discontinuation, full toxicity and guideline currency audit remains a QC requirement.