4.6 Article

Less versus more radical surgery in stage IB1 cervical cancer: A population-based study of long-term survival

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 150, 期 1, 页码 44-49

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.571

关键词

Cervical cancer; Simple hysterectomy; Conization; Trachelectomy; Radical hysterectomy; Disease-specific survival

资金

  1. NIH/NCI [P30 CA008748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Standard surgical treatment for women with stage IB1 cervical cancer consists of radical hysterectomy. This study assesses survival outcomes of those treated with less radical surgery (LRS; conization, trachelectomy, simple hysterectomy) compared to more radical surgery (MRS; modified radical, radical hysterectomy). Methods. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, we identified women <45 years with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer diagnosed from 1/1998 to 12/2012. Only those who underwent lymph node (LN) assessment were analyzed. Disease-specific survivals (DSSs) of LRS were compared with those of MRS. Results. Of 2571 patients, 807 underwent LRS and 1764 underwent MRS, all with LN assessment. For LRS vs. MRS, 28% vs. 23% were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma (p = 0.024), 31% vs. 39% had G3 disease (p < 0.001), 40% vs. 45% had tumor size >2 cm (p < 0.001), and 27% vs. 29% received adjuvant radiation therapy (p = 0.005). Median follow-up was 79 months (range, 0-179). Ten-year DSS for LRS vs. MRS was 93.5% vs. 92.3% (p = 0.511). There was no difference in 10-year DSS when stratified by tumor size <= 2 cm (LRS 95.1% vs. MRS 95.6%, p = 0.80) or > 2 cm (LRS 90.1% vs. MRS 88.2%, p = 0.48). Factors independently associated with increased risk of death included adenosquamous histology (HR 2.37), G3 disease (HR 2.86), tumors >2 cm (HR 1.82), and LN positivity (HR 2.42). Compared to MRS, LRS was not associated with a higher risk of death. Conclusions. In a select group of young women with stage IB1 cervical cancer, LRS compared to MRS does not appear to compromise DSS. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据