4.6 Article

Long-term results of fertility-sparing treatment for early-stage cervical cancer

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 154, Issue 1, Pages 89-94

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.007

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Fertility-sparing; Conservative surgery; Lymph node; Conization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To evaluate the long-term outcomes of young early stage cervical cancer patients wishing to preserve their childbearing potential. Methods. Data of young (aged <40 years) patients with early stage cervical cancer were prospectively collected. All patients with stage IA2,IB1 and IB2 cervical cancer were included; they have cervical conization and pelvic node dissection performed via minimally invasive surgery. Survival outcomes were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier model. Results. Overall, 32 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) age of the population included was 33 (+/- 4). According to the FIGO 2018 staging system, the stage of disease was IA2, IB1 and 182 in 9 (28%), 21 (66%) and 2 (6%) cases, respectively. All patients included had cervical conization and laparoscopic pelvic node assessment, including systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (N = 30, 94%) and sentinel node mapping (N = 2, 6%). In six (19%) patients the planned conservative treatment was discontinued. Median follow-up was 75 (range, 12-184) months. No recurrent disease was diagnosed among patients undergoing conservative treatment; while 2 out of 6 patients having definitive surgical or radiotherapy treatments developed recurrent disease. Five-year disease free and overall survivals were 94% and 97%, respectively. Considering reproductive outcomes, 11 (69%) out of 16 patients who attempted to conceive got pregnant Conclusions. Cervical conization and pelvic nodes assessment could be considered a valid treatment modality for early-stage cervical cancer patients who are wishing to preserve their childbearing potential. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available