4.6 Review

Management of low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: Should conization, simple trachelectomy, or simple hysterectomy replace radical surgery as the new standard of care

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 132, Issue 1, Pages 254-259

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.09.004

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Conization; Simple hysterectomy; Simple trachelectomy; Conservative

Funding

  1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  2. National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center [CA016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The standard treatment for women with early-stage cervical cancer (IA2-IB1) remains radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. In select patients interested in future fertility, the option of radical trachelectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is also considered a viable option. The possibility of less radical surgery may be appropriate not only for patients desiring to preserve fertility but also for all patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Recently, a number of studies have explored less radical surgical options for early-stage cervical cancer, including simple hysterectomy, simple trachelectomy, and cervical conization with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Such options may be available for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. Criteria that define this low-risk group include: squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, tumor size <2 cm, stromal invasion <10 mm, and no lymph-vascular space invasion. In this report, We provide a review of the existing literature on the conservative management of cervical cancer and describe ongoing multi-institutional trials evaluating the role of conservative surgery in selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer. (C) 2013 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