Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Cervical Cancer | Translational Research

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

Authors: Vanna Zanagnolo, MD, Clara Baroni, MD, Maria Teresa Achilarre, MD, Alessia Aloisi, MD, Ilaria Betella, MD, Stefano Bogliolo, MD, Annalisa Garbi, MD, Matteo Maruccio, MD, Francesco Multinu, MD, Giovanni Aletti, MD, Angelo Maggioni, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate oncologic outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in a referral center, a retrospective analysis was performed.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2018, medical records of stage IA2–IIA1 cervical cancer patients, who underwent radical hysterectomy at our institute, were retrospectively reviewed. We focused our analysis on those who underwent RRH.

Results

A total of 198 patients were included in the final analysis. Median follow up was 52 months. At last follow-up, 188 (94.9%) women were disease-free, 9 (4.5%) had died, and 1 (0.5%) was alive with recurrent disease. At 4.5 years, PFS was 93.1% (SE ± 2.1) and OS was 95.1% (SE ± 1.8). Stratified by tumor size, PFS for tumor < 2 cm versus tumor ≥ 2 cm was statistically different (96.8% ± 2.3 and 87.9% ± 4.1 respectively, p = 0.01), as well as OS (100% and 89.8% ± 40 respectively, p = 0.01).Stratified by evidence of tumor at time of robotic surgery, PFS was statistically different in women with no residual tumor after conisation versus those with residual disease (100% ± 2.5 and 90.8% ± 2.8 respectively, p = 0.04). A recurrence occurred in 11 patients (5.6%).

Conclusions

Based on our results, we could speculate that robotic approach, along with some technical precautions to avoid spillage, might be safe as primary treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, especially for tumor < 2 cm and in case of no evidence of disease at time of radical hysterectomy after previous conisation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jema lA. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of cancer incidence and mortality for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jema lA. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of cancer incidence and mortality for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.
2.
go back to reference American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas. Number 35, May 2002. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;78(1):79–91. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas. Number 35, May 2002. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;78(1):79–91.
3.
go back to reference Gaffney DK, Erickson-Wittmann BA, Jhingran A, et al. Appropriateness Criteria® on advanced cervical cancer expert panel on radiation oncology-gynecology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):609–14.CrossRef Gaffney DK, Erickson-Wittmann BA, Jhingran A, et al. Appropriateness Criteria® on advanced cervical cancer expert panel on radiation oncology-gynecology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(3):609–14.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Monk BJ, Tewari KS, Koh WJ. Multimodality therapy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma: state of the art and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(20):2952–65.CrossRef Monk BJ, Tewari KS, Koh WJ. Multimodality therapy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma: state of the art and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(20):2952–65.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Querleu D, Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR. 2017 Update on the Querleu-Morrow Classification of Radical Hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(11):3406–126. Querleu D, Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR. 2017 Update on the Querleu-Morrow Classification of Radical Hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(11):3406–126.
6.
go back to reference Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.CrossRef Wang YZ, Deng L, Xu HC, Zhang Y, Liang ZQ. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lee EJ, Kang H, Kim DH. A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):83–6.CrossRef Lee EJ, Kang H, Kim DH. A comparative study of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with radical abdominal hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):83–6.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):903–11.CrossRef Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT. Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):903–11.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(4):513–22.CrossRef Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(4):513–22.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904.CrossRef Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(2):314–5.CrossRef Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115(2):314–5.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(4):641–55.CrossRef Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(4):641–55.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bhatla N, Berek J S, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145:129–35.CrossRef Bhatla N, Berek J S, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145:129–35.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, Al-Khaduri M, Kew F, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9) CD006655. PMID: 22972096 Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, Al-Khaduri M, Kew F, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9) CD006655. PMID: 22972096
15.
go back to reference Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;27(32):5331–6.CrossRef Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;27(32):5331–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Jørgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu CS, Korsholm M, Lund K, Jensen PT. Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;109:1–11.CrossRef Jørgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu CS, Korsholm M, Lund K, Jensen PT. Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;109:1–11.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D, Paley P. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e82.CrossRef Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D, Paley P. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e82.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Cervical Cancer Version 1. 2018; 2017. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Cervical Cancer Version 1. 2018; 2017.
19.
go back to reference Zhou J, Xiong BH, Ma L, Cheng Y, Huang W, Zhao L. Robotic vs. laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(1):145–54. Zhou J, Xiong BH, Ma L, Cheng Y, Huang W, Zhao L. Robotic vs. laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(1):145–54.
20.
go back to reference Pergialiotis V, Rodolakis A, Christakis D, Thomakos N, Vlachos G, Antsaklis A. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy: systematic review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):745–53.CrossRef Pergialiotis V, Rodolakis A, Christakis D, Thomakos N, Vlachos G, Antsaklis A. Laparoscopically assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy: systematic review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):745–53.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Shazly SAM, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(2):457–71.CrossRef Shazly SAM, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(2):457–71.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Frumovitz M, Dos Reis R, Sun CC, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):96–102.CrossRef Frumovitz M, Dos Reis R, Sun CC, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):96–102.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, Wan T, Liu J. Prognostic and safety roles in laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2015;25(12):990–8.CrossRef Cao T, Feng Y, Huang Q, Wan T, Liu J. Prognostic and safety roles in laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2015;25(12):990–8.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong GW, Zhang XW. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2017;27(11):1132–44.CrossRef Zhao Y, Hang B, Xiong GW, Zhang XW. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2017;27(11):1132–44.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Diver E, Hinchcliff E, Gockley A, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and similar survival outcomes compared with laparotomy. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):402–6.CrossRef Diver E, Hinchcliff E, Gockley A, et al. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and similar survival outcomes compared with laparotomy. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):402–6.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Park DA, Yun JE, Kim SW, Lee SH. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(6):994–1002.CrossRef Park DA, Yun JE, Kim SW, Lee SH. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(6):994–1002.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Zhang S sha, Ding T, Cui Z hui, Lv Y, Jiang R. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: a separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies. Med (United States) Medicine. 2019;98:4. Zhang S sha, Ding T, Cui Z hui, Lv Y, Jiang R. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: a separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies. Med (United States) Medicine. 2019;98:4.
29.
go back to reference Hoogendam JP, Verheijen RHM, Wegner I, Zweemer RP. Oncological outcome and long-term complications in robot-assisted radical surgery for early stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(12):1538–45.CrossRef Hoogendam JP, Verheijen RHM, Wegner I, Zweemer RP. Oncological outcome and long-term complications in robot-assisted radical surgery for early stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(12):1538–45.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Fusco A, Malzoni C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1316–23.CrossRef Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Fusco A, Malzoni C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1316–23.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Sun CC, et al. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123(2):333–6.CrossRef Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Sun CC, et al. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123(2):333–6.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Zanagnolo V, Minig L, Rollo D, et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer: experience at a referral cancer center. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(3):568–74.CrossRef Zanagnolo V, Minig L, Rollo D, et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer: experience at a referral cancer center. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(3):568–74.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Zanagnolo V, Minig L, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, et al. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with locally advanced cervical cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single-institution experience of surgical and oncologic outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):909–16.CrossRef Zanagnolo V, Minig L, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, et al. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with locally advanced cervical cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single-institution experience of surgical and oncologic outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):909–16.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al. A Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):584–8.CrossRef Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al. A Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):584–8.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 379(20):1905–14. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 379(20):1905–14.
36.
go back to reference Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation FIGO 2018 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019, 152 (1), 87–93CrossRef Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation FIGO 2018 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019, 152 (1), 87–93CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut AN, et al. Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:209–14.CrossRef Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut AN, et al. Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:209–14.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):169–82. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):169–82.
39.
go back to reference Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1–IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(1):3–12.CrossRef Kim SI, Cho JH, Seol A, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1–IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(1):3–12.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Uppal S, Rebecca Liu J, Kevin Reynolds R, Rice LW, Spencer RJ. Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012–2015). Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):133–8.CrossRef Uppal S, Rebecca Liu J, Kevin Reynolds R, Rice LW, Spencer RJ. Trends and comparative effectiveness of inpatient radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States (2012–2015). Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):133–8.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Cusimano MC, Baxter NN, Gien LT, et al. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(6):619.e1–619.e24.CrossRef Cusimano MC, Baxter NN, Gien LT, et al. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(6):619.e1–619.e24.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;116:169–77.CrossRef Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;116:169–77.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Falconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1072–6.CrossRef Falconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(6):1072–6.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Kucukmetin A, et al. SUCCOR study. An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009, < 4 cm) cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019:29:A1–2. Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Kucukmetin A, et al. SUCCOR study. An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009, < 4 cm) cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019:29:A1–2.
Metadata
Title
Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center
Authors
Vanna Zanagnolo, MD
Clara Baroni, MD
Maria Teresa Achilarre, MD
Alessia Aloisi, MD
Ilaria Betella, MD
Stefano Bogliolo, MD
Annalisa Garbi, MD
Matteo Maruccio, MD
Francesco Multinu, MD
Giovanni Aletti, MD
Angelo Maggioni, MD
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09016-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2021 Go to the issue