BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the value of routine follow-up for the detection of recurrence in patients treated for cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1986 to 1998, 583 women with stage I and II cervical carcinoma were treated with combined surgery-radiation therapy. After treatment, follow-up was based on clinical examination, a systematic Pap smear and radiography (chest X-ray and abdomino-pelvic ultrasonography). RESULTS: Forty-five patients had recurrence observed with a delay > or = 6 months following the end of treatment. Thirty-eight patients had symptoms and seven were asymptomatic at the time of their recurrence. Among asymptomatic patients only two recurrences were diagnosed following routine examinations. Survival is similar in asymptomatic and symptomatic recurrent patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, follow-up of patients treated for cervical cancer based on routine Pap smears and systematic radiography does not permit earlier detection of recurrence and does not increase survival.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the value of routine follow-up for the detection of recurrence in patients treated for cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1986 to 1998, 583 women with stage I and II cervical carcinoma were treated with combined surgery-radiation therapy. After treatment, follow-up was based on clinical examination, a systematic Pap smear and radiography (chest X-ray and abdomino-pelvic ultrasonography). RESULTS: Forty-five patients had recurrence observed with a delay > or = 6 months following the end of treatment. Thirty-eight patients had symptoms and seven were asymptomatic at the time of their recurrence. Among asymptomatic patients only two recurrences were diagnosed following routine examinations. Survival is similar in asymptomatic and symptomatic recurrent patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, follow-up of patients treated for cervical cancer based on routine Pap smears and systematic radiography does not permit earlier detection of recurrence and does not increase survival.
Authors: David Cibula; Lukáš Dostálek; Jiri Jarkovsky; Constantijne H Mom; Aldo Lopez; Henrik Falconer; Anna Fagotti; Ali Ayhan; Sarah H Kim; David Isla Ortiz; Jaroslav Klat; Andreas Obermair; Fabio Landoni; Juliana Rodriguez; Ranjit Manchanda; Jan Kosťun; Ricardo Dos Reis; Mehmet M Meydanli; Diego Odetto; Rene Laky; Ignacio Zapardiel; Vit Weinberger; Klára Benešová; Martina Borčinová; Darwin Pari; Sahar Salehi; Nicolò Bizzarri; Huseyin Akilli; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Rosa A Salcedo-Hernández; Veronika Javůrková; Jiří Sláma; Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 10.002
Authors: Rebecca A Brooks; Janet S Rader; Farrokh Dehdashti; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell; Premal H Thaker; Barry A Siegel; Perry W Grigsby Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Fernanda A Lucena; Ricardo F A Costa; Maira D Stein; Carlos E M C Andrade; Geórgia F Cintra; Marcelo A Vieira; Rozany M Dufloth; José Humberto T G Fregnani; Ricardo Dos Reis Journal: BMC Clin Pathol Date: 2018-10-05