H Steed1, V Capstick, A Schepansky, L Honore, M Hiltz, W Faught. 1. Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. helenste@cancerboard.ab.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of parametrial involvement in clinical stage IA and IB1 cervical cancer and whether pelvic lymph node status is a predictor of parametrial status. METHODS: Retrospective review of 120 patients with FIGO stage IA/IB1 cervical carcinoma treated by class II radical abdominal hysterectomy between January 1997 and December 2001 was performed. The parametria were examined for microscopic involvement of parametrial lymph nodes and/or tissue. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Fisher's exact test was used to categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate prognostic factors. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients were eligible. Five patients (5%) had positive parametria and 13 patients (12%) had positive pelvic lymph nodes. Four (80%) patients with positive parametria had positive pelvic lymph nodes. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of age (P = 0.92), histology (P = 0.15), or LVSI (P = 0.20). Positive parametria was associated with larger tumor size (3.0 vs. 2.0 cm, P < 0.05), greater depth of invasion (16 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03), and pelvic lymph node metastases (80% vs. 10%, P = 0.001). The only variable that was significant in the proportional hazards model was lymph node status (P = 0.02). After median follow-up of 48 months, there was a significant difference in recurrence (40% vs. 4%, P = 0.03) and RFS (0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging small sample size and retrospective study, positive parametrial involvement in stage IA and IB1 cervical cancer is infrequent. There is a significant association with lymph node status. Thus, there may be a role for less radical surgery combined with pelvic lymphadenectomy in this patient population.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of parametrial involvement in clinical stage IA and IB1 cervical cancer and whether pelvic lymph node status is a predictor of parametrial status. METHODS: Retrospective review of 120 patients with FIGO stage IA/IB1 cervical carcinoma treated by class II radical abdominal hysterectomy between January 1997 and December 2001 was performed. The parametria were examined for microscopic involvement of parametrial lymph nodes and/or tissue. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Fisher's exact test was used to categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate prognostic factors. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients were eligible. Five patients (5%) had positive parametria and 13 patients (12%) had positive pelvic lymph nodes. Four (80%) patients with positive parametria had positive pelvic lymph nodes. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of age (P = 0.92), histology (P = 0.15), or LVSI (P = 0.20). Positive parametria was associated with larger tumor size (3.0 vs. 2.0 cm, P < 0.05), greater depth of invasion (16 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03), and pelvic lymph node metastases (80% vs. 10%, P = 0.001). The only variable that was significant in the proportional hazards model was lymph node status (P = 0.02). After median follow-up of 48 months, there was a significant difference in recurrence (40% vs. 4%, P = 0.03) and RFS (0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging small sample size and retrospective study, positive parametrial involvement in stage IA and IB1 cervical cancer is infrequent. There is a significant association with lymph node status. Thus, there may be a role for less radical surgery combined with pelvic lymphadenectomy in this patient population.
Authors: Andres A Roma; Toni-Ann Mistretta; Andrea Diaz De Vivar; Kay J Park; Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero; Golnar Rasty; Jose G Chanona-Vilchis; Yoshiki Mikami; Sung R Hong; Norihiro Teramoto; Rouba Ali-Fehmi; Denise Barbuto; Joanne K L Rutgers; Elvio G Silva Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John P Diaz; Mary L Gemignani; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Kay J Park; Melissa P Murray; Dennis S Chi; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joost R van der Vorst; Merlijn Hutteman; Katja N Gaarenstroom; Alexander A W Peters; J Sven D Mieog; Boudewijn E Schaafsma; Peter J K Kuppen; John V Frangioni; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Elizabeth D Euscher; Michael T Deavers; Pamela T Soliman; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-08-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Margaret H Einstein; Kay J Park; Yukio Sonoda; Jeanne Carter; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 5.482