OBJECTIVE: To estimate the safety of fertility-conserving surgery for stage IA1 cervical cancer and to analyze predictors of access to conization. METHODS: We analyzed women with stage IA1 cervical cancer aged 40 years or younger who were diagnosed between 1988 and 2005 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The outcomes of hysterectomy were compared with fertility-conserving conization. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared using chi2. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine predictors of conization. Survival was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 1,409 patients were identified, including 841 (60%) who underwent hysterectomy and 568 (40%) who underwent conization. In a multivariable logistic regression of factors associated with conization, Asian patients, single women, those diagnosed in the later years of the study, and those residing in the eastern United States were more likely to have fertility-conserving surgery. Compared with women younger than 30 years, those older than 35 years were 78% (odds ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.30) less likely to undergo conization. In a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for other prognostic variables, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.47) between conization and hysterectomy. Five-year survival for women who underwent conization was 98% (95% CI 96-99%), compared with 99% (95% CI 97-99%) for those treated with hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Fertility-conserving surgery is safe for young women with stage IA1 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Young women with microinvasive cervical tumors should weigh the risks and benefits of conization in the context of individual preferences and tumor characteristics.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the safety of fertility-conserving surgery for stage IA1 cervical cancer and to analyze predictors of access to conization. METHODS: We analyzed women with stage IA1 cervical cancer aged 40 years or younger who were diagnosed between 1988 and 2005 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The outcomes of hysterectomy were compared with fertility-conserving conization. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared using chi2. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine predictors of conization. Survival was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 1,409 patients were identified, including 841 (60%) who underwent hysterectomy and 568 (40%) who underwent conization. In a multivariable logistic regression of factors associated with conization, Asian patients, single women, those diagnosed in the later years of the study, and those residing in the eastern United States were more likely to have fertility-conserving surgery. Compared with women younger than 30 years, those older than 35 years were 78% (odds ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.30) less likely to undergo conization. In a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for other prognostic variables, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.47) between conization and hysterectomy. Five-year survival for women who underwent conization was 98% (95% CI 96-99%), compared with 99% (95% CI 97-99%) for those treated with hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Fertility-conserving surgery is safe for young women with stage IA1 squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Young women with microinvasive cervical tumors should weigh the risks and benefits of conization in the context of individual preferences and tumor characteristics.
Authors: Silvana Pedra Nobre; Varvara Mazina; Alexia Iasonos; Qin C Zhou; Yukio Sonoda; Ginger Gardner; Kara Long-Roche; Mario M Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Jennifer J Mueller Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Erin M George; Thomas J Herzog; Alfred I Neugut; Yu-Shiang Lu; William M Burke; Sharyn N Lewin; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vijaya Galic; Maria B Schiavone; Thomas J Herzog; Kevin Holcomb; Sharyn N Lewin; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.176