nach oben

Current Oncology Reports

Erschienen in:

01.08.2017 | Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery

verfasst von: Tiffany Zigras, Genevieve Lennox, Karla Willows, Allan Covens

Erschienen in: Current Oncology Reports | Ausgabe 8/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Advances in cervical cancer screening and treatment have resulted in high cure rates in developed countries for early-stage disease. Current research focuses on minimizing morbidity and maximizing quality of life.

Recent Findings

Imaging has been disappointing in identifying small volume metastases. Sentinel lymph node biopsy represents a significant advantage with high sensitivity, low false negative rates, reduced morbidity, and equivalent survival in recent studies compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy. Non-radical surgical options are currently being investigated for early cervical cancer in a number of large prospective studies in patients at low risk for metastases.

Summary

Evidence suggests that sentinel lymph node biopsy and non-radical surgery are safe approaches for the staging and management of early cervical cancer in appropriately selected patients with the potential to significantly reduce treatment-related morbidity.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 2016/9/4.

Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):107–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Creasman WT, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;(95 Suppl 1):S43–103. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(06)60030-1.

Bermudez A, Bhatla N, Leung E. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl 2):S88–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.004.CrossRefPubMed

Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Ford JH, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 1980;9(1):90–8. doi:10.1016/0090-8258(80)90013-X.CrossRefPubMed

Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(1):43–50.CrossRefPubMed

Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Chi DS, Long HJ 3rd, et al. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7454–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5397.CrossRefPubMed

Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Moulopoulos LA. Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. World J Radiol. 2016;8(4):342–54. doi:10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bhosale PR, Iyer RB, Ramalingam P, Schmeler KM, Wei W, Bassett RL, et al. Is MRI helpful in assessing the distance of the tumour from the internal os in patients with cervical cancer below FIGO stage IB2? Clin Radiol. 2016;71(6):515–22. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.02.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley FV, Snyder B, Reinhold C, Schwartz LH, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation—ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology. 2007;245(2):491–8. doi:10.1148/radiol.2452061983.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, Reinhold C, Thomas G, Amendola M, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5687–94. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799.CrossRefPubMed

12.

World Health Organization. Baseline country survey on medical devices 2010. Geneva: WHO Press; 2011.

13.

Shen G, Zhou H, Jia Z, Deng H. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1052):20150063. doi:10.1259/bjr.20150063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, Bergman A, Brkljacic B, Danza F, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(5):1102–10. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1998-x.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lee JY, Kwon JS, Cohn DE, Kim Y, Smith B, Lee TJ, et al. Treatment strategies for stage IB cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from Korean, Canadian and U.S. perspectives. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(1):83–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.007.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, Amendola MA, Brandt K, Schwartz LH, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9329–37. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0354.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, Lee S, Kim JY, Kim SK, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer. 2006;106(4):914–22. doi:10.1002/cncr.21641.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Lv K, Guo HM, Lu YJ, Wu ZX, Zhang K, Han JK. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic lymph-node metastases in patients with early-stage uterine cervical cancer: comparison with MRI findings. Nucl med Commun. 2014;35(12):1204–11. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000198.CrossRefPubMed

19.

• Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(1):56–65. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2902-8. PET/MRI has potential to add diagnostic confidence to metastatics pelvic lymph node assessment with reduced radiation to patients.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, Perego P, Moreni R, Pellegrino A, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology. 2006;238(1):272–9. doi:10.1148/radiol.2381041799.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, Zikan M, Zaal A, Sevcik L, et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(3):496–501. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.037.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fraum TJ, Fowler KJ, McConathy J. PET/MRI: emerging clinical applications in oncology. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(2):220–36. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.09.008.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kodama J, Kusumoto T, Nakamura K, Seki N, Hongo A, Hiramatsu Y. Factors associated with parametrial involvement in stage IB1 cervical cancer and identification of patients suitable for less radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(3):491–4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.038.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, Burke WM, Lu YS, Lewin SN, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.031.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Steed H, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, De Petrillo D, Covens A. A comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93(3):588–93. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Taylor SE, McBee WC Jr, Richard SD, Edwards RP. Radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. JSLS. 2011;15(2):213–7. doi:10.4293/108680811X13022985132218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Hong JH, Choi JS, Lee JH, Son CE, Jeon SW, Bae JW, et al. Comparison of survival and adverse events between women with stage IB1 and stage IB2 cervical cancer treated by laparoscopic radical vaginal hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):605–11. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1904-z.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1201–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256ccc5.CrossRefPubMed

29.

van de Lande J, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Lettinga RG, Piek JM, Verheijen RH. Open versus laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in early stage cervical cancer: no difference in surgical or disease outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(1):107–14. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822c273d.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(1):176–80. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.011.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG. 2010;117(6):746–51. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02479.x.CrossRefPubMed

32.

• Campos LS, Limberger LF, Stein AT, Kalil AN. Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:293. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-293. Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy have less pain compared to those undergoing abdpoinal radical hysterectomy. Perioperative and post-operative outcomes were not significantly different.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, 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. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.013.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Obermair A, Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT. A phase III randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 2016. URL of the record NLM Identifier: NCT00614211. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00614211?term=laparoscopy+cervical+cancer&rank=4. Accessed 2016/12/12.

35.

Biewenga P, van der Velden J, Mol BW, Stalpers LJ, Schilthuis MS, van der Steeg JW, et al. Prognostic model for survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(4):768–76. doi:10.1002/cncr.25658.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Macdonald OK, Chen J, Dodson M, Lee CM, Gaffney DK. Prognostic significance of histology and positive lymph node involvement following radical hysterectomy in carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(4):411–6. doi:10.1097/COC.0b013e31819142dc.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wiebe E, Denny L, Thomas G. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119 Suppl 2(SUPPL. 2):S100–9. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(12)60023-X.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Plentl AA, Friedman EA. Lymphatic system of the female genitalia. The morphologic basis of oncologic diagnosis and therapy. Major Probl Obstet Gynecol. 1971;2:1–223.PubMed

39.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines): cervical cancer. Version I.2016. 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/cervical.pdf.

40.

Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, Deavers MT, Dos Reis R, Levenback CF, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):93–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ab474d.CrossRefPubMed

41.

• Kadkhodayan S, Hasanzadeh M, Treglia G, Azad A, Yousefi Z, Zarifmahmoudi L, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for lymph nodal staging of uterine cervix cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the pertinent literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):1–20. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2014.09.010. Sentinel lymph node mapping showed a pooled detection rate of 89.2% and a pooled sensitivity of 90%. In addition, sentinel lymph nodes were able to be identified outside of the usual pelvic lymphadenectomy borders.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Magrina JF. Primary surgery for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer, including short-term and long-term morbidity and treatment in pregnancy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1996;21:53–9.

43.

Ohba Y, Todo Y, Kobayashi N, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, et al. Risk factors for lower-limb lymphedema after surgery for cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16(3):238–43. doi:10.1007/s10147-010-0171-5.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Niikura H, Okamoto S, Otsuki T, Yoshinaga K, Utsunomiya H, Nagase S, et al. Prospective study of sentinel lymph node biopsy without further pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with sentinel lymph node-negative cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(7):1244–50. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318263f06a.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Lecuru F, Mathevet P, Querleu D, Leblanc E, Morice P, Darai E, et al. Bilateral negative sentinel nodes accurately predict absence of lymph node metastasis in early cervical cancer: results of the SENTICOL study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1686–91. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.32.0432.CrossRefPubMed

46.

• Mathevet P, Lecuru F, editors. Effect of sentinel lymph-node biopsy alone on the morbidity of the surgical treatment of early cervical cancer: results from the prospective randomized study Senticol2. ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2015. In patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes, those who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy alone had less surgical morbidity compared to those who underwent complete pelvic lymphadenectomy. There were no false negative sentinel lymph nodes in the study.

47.

• Ruscito I, Gasparri ML, Braicu EI, Bellati F, Raio L, Sehouli J, et al. Sentinel node mapping in cervical and endometrial cancer: indocyanine green versus other conventional dyes—a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3749–56. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5236-x. Detection rates of sentinel lymph nodes by indocyanine green (ICG) are equivalent to that of combination blue dye and radiactive tracer. ICG is likely to be favored given its ease of use and safety.CrossRefPubMed

48.

• Lennox GK, Covens A. Can sentinel lymph node biopsy replace pelvic lymphadenectomy for early cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(1):16–20. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.337. Patients with negative nodes by sentinel lymph node biopsy alone or complete pelvic lymphadenectomy had no difference in two or five recurrence-free survival. Those who had complete pelvic lymphadenectomy had increased operative time, transfusions, and post-operative infections compared to those who had sentinel lymph node biopsy alone.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Gortzak-Uzan L, Jimenez W, Nofech-Mozes S, Ismiil N, Khalifa MA, Dube V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer: is it time to change the gold standard? Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(1):28–32. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.10.049.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR, Munsell MF, Jhingran A, Wharton JT, et al. Quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7428–36. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.00.3996.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G. Lymphedema and bladder-emptying difficulties after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer and among population controls. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(3):1130–9. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00601.x.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Sood AK, Nygaard I, Shahin MS, Sorosky JI, Lutgendorf SK, Rao SS. Anorectal dysfunction after surgical treatment for cervical cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195(4):513–9. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01311-X.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Trimbos JB, Franchi M, Zanaboni F, Velden J, Vergote I. ‘State of the art’ of radical hysterectomy; current practice in European oncology centres. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2003.09.017.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Wenzel L, DeAlba I, Habbal R, Kluhsman BC, Fairclough D, Krebs LU, et al. Quality of life in long-term cervical cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(2):310–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.010.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Benedetti-Panici P, Maneschi F, D'Andrea G, Cutillo G, Rabitti C, Congiu M, et al. Early cervical carcinoma: the natural history of lymph node involvement redefined on the basis of thorough parametrectomy and giant section study. Cancer. 2000;88(10):2267–74. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000515)88:10<2267::AID-CNCR10>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Averette HE, Nguyen HN, Donato DM, Penalver MA, Sevin BU, Estape R, et al. Radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer. A 25-year prospective experience with the Miami technique. Cancer. 1993;71(4 Suppl):1422–37. doi:10.1002/cncr.2820710407.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1975;30(3):220–3.CrossRef

58.

Photopulos GJ, Zwaag RV. Class II radical hysterectomy shows less morbidity and good treatment efficacy compared to class III. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;40(1):21–4. doi:10.1016/0090-8258(91)90078-j.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Magrina JF, Goodrich MA, Weaver AL, Podratz KC. Modified radical hysterectomy: morbidity and mortality. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59(2):277–82. doi:10.1006/gyno.1995.0022.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Kadar N, Saliba N, Nelson JH. The frequency, causes and prevention of severe urinary dysfunction after radical hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90(9):858–63. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb09328.x.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Landoni F, Maneo A, Zapardiel I, Zanagnolo V, Mangioni C. Class I versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. A prospective randomized study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(3):203–9. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2011.12.017.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G. Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J med. 1999;340(18):1383–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199905063401802.CrossRefPubMed

63.

• Aerts L, Enzlin P, Verhaeghe J, Poppe W, Vergote I, Amant F. Long-term sexual functioning in women after surgical treatment of cervical cancer stages IA to IB: a prospective controlled study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(8):1527–34. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000236. Women with cervical cancer who underwent surgical management had signficiantly worse sexual dysfunction, psychological function, and quality of partner relationship compared to healthy controls.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Kinney WK, Hodge DO, Egorshin EV, Ballard DJ, Podratz KC. Identification of a low-risk subset of patients with stage IB invasive squamous cancer of the cervix possibly suited to less radical surgical treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;57(1):3–6. doi:10.1006/gyno.1995.1091.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, DePetrillo AD, Lickrish G, et al. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84(1):145–9. doi:10.1006/gyno.2001.6493.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Stegeman M, Louwen M, van der Velden J, ten Kate FJ, den Bakker MA, Burger CW, et al. The incidence of parametrial tumor involvement in select patients with early cervix cancer is too low to justify parametrectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):475–80. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.016.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Wright JD, Grigsby PW, Brooks R, Powell MA, Gibb RK, Gao F, et al. Utility of parametrectomy for early stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 2007;110(6):1281–6. doi:10.1002/cncr.22899.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. A model for prediction of parametrial involvement and feasibility of less radical resection of parametrium in patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):82–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.016.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Klat J, Sevcik L, Simetka O, Graf P, Dvorackova J, Kraft O. What is the risk for parametrial involvement in women with early-stage cervical cancer with tumour <20 mm and with negative sentinel lymph nodes? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(6):540–4. doi:10.1111/ajo.12015.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Gemer O, Eitan R, Gdalevich M, Mamanov A, Piura B, Rabinovich A, et al. Can parametrectomy be avoided in early cervical cancer? An algorithm for the identification of patients at low risk for parametrial involvement. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(1):76–80. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2012.10.013.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Meirovitz M, Sade S, Dreiher J, Shaco-Levy R. Is radical hysterectomy necessary in early cervical cancer? Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2013;76(3):158–62. doi:10.1159/000353899.CrossRef

72.

Lee JY, Youm J, Kim JW, Cho JY, Kim MA, Kim TH, et al. Identifying a low-risk group for parametrial involvement in microscopic stage IB1 cervical cancer using criteria from ongoing studies and a new MRI criterion. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(167):167. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1184-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Yamazaki H, Todo Y, Okamoto K, Yamashiro K, Kato H. Pretreatment risk factors for parametrial involvement in FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(4):255–61. doi:10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.255.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Rob L, Pluta M, Strnad P, Hrehorcak M, Chmel R, Skapa P, et al. A less radical treatment option to the fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(2 Suppl):S116–20. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.021.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Pluta M, Rob L, Charvat M, Chmel R, Halaska M Jr, Skapa P, et al. Less radical surgery than radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):181–4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.02.005.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Biliatis I, Kucukmetin A, Patel A, Ratnavelu N, Cross P, Chattopadhyay S, et al. Small volume stage 1B1 cervical cancer: is radical surgery still necessary? Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):73–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.041.CrossRefPubMed

77.

• Bouchard-Fortier G, Reade CJ, Covens A. Non-radical surgery for small early-stage cervical cancer. Is it time? Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):624–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.037. Of women with early cervical cancer who met low-risk criteria and underwent non-radical surgical treatment (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy), they had excellent oncological outcomes with no recurrences after a median follow-up time of 21 months.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Plante M. Radical versus simple hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection in patients with low-risk early stage cervical cancer (SHAPE). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658930. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01658930. Accessed 2016/9/5.

79.

MD Anderson Cancer Center. Conservative surgery for women with cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01048853. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01048853. Accessed 2016/9/5.

80.

Covens A. Studying the physical function and quality of life before and after surgery in patients with stage 1 cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01649089. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01649089. Accessed 2016/9/5.

81.

Sopracordevole F, Chiossi G, Barbero M, Cristoforoni P, Ghiringhello B, Frega A, et al. Surgical approach and long-term clinical outcome in women with microinvasive cervical cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(8):4345–9.PubMed

82.

Dargent D, Martin X, Sacchetoni A, Mathevet P. Laparoscopic vaginal radical trachelectomy: a treatment to preserve the fertility of cervical carcinoma patients. Cancer. 2000;88(8):1877–82.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Abu-Rustum NR, Neubauer N, Sonoda Y, Park KJ, Gemignani M, Alektiar KM, et al. Surgical and pathologic outcomes of fertility-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy for FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(2):261–4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

• Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A, Chargari C, Leary A, Morice P. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):e240–53. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30032-8. Fertility-sparing surgery can be considered for women with stage IB1 cervical cancer. The approach must take into account tumor size and presence of lymphovascular space invasion. Onologic and obstetric outcomes are accepable, but must be weighed against risks.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, Sevin BU, Creasman WT, Major F. Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;38(3):352–7.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Zivanovic O, Leitao MM Jr, Park KJ, Zhao H, Diaz JP, Konner J, et al. Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of outcome, recurrence pattern and the impact of platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):590–3. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

87.

• Speiser D, Kohler C, Schneider A, Mangler M. Radical vaginal trachelectomy: a fertility-preserving procedure in early cervical cancer in young women. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(17):289–95. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0289. In women with early cervical cancer with tumor size <2 cm who wish to preserve fertility, radical vaginal trachelectomy is feasible and oncologically safe. Patients, who do go on to get pregnant, have higher rates of preterm births.PubMedPubMedCentral

88.

Plante M, Renaud MC, Francois H, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an oncologically safe fertility-preserving surgery. An updated series of 72 cases and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94(3):614–23. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.05.032.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Willows K, Lennox G, Covens A. Fertility-sparing management in cervical cancer: balancing oncologic outcomes with reproductive success. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2016;3:9. doi:10.1186/s40661-016-0030-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery
verfasst von: Tiffany Zigras
Genevieve Lennox
Karla Willows
Allan Covens
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Oncology Reports / Ausgabe 8/2017
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0614-5

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2017

Tumor Treating Fields in Neuro-Oncological Practice

Adding Adjuvant Systemic Treatment after Neoadjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: Review of the Data

The Role of Telemedicine in Providing Thoracic Oncology Care to Remote Areas of British Columbia

Current Management Strategy for Penile Cancer and Future Directions

Cardio-oncology: Gaps in Knowledge, Goals, Advances, and Educational Efforts

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie