OBJECTIVE: The profile of women with gynecologic malignancies treated with pelvic exenteration has changed since the initial description of this procedure. We sought to evaluate our experience with pelvic exenteration over the last 20 years. METHODS: Patients who underwent anterior, posterior, or total pelvic exenteration for vulvar, vaginal, and cervical cancer at Barnes-Jewish Hospital between January 1, 1990 and August 1, 2009 were identified through hospital databases. Patient characteristics, the indications for the procedure, procedural modifications, and patient outcomes were retrospectively assessed. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square method, and survival data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified who had pelvic exenteration for cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Recurrent cervical cancer was the most common procedural indication. One year overall survival from pelvic exenteration for the entire cohort was 64%, with 44% of patients still living at 2 years and 34% at 50 months. Younger age was associated with improved overall survival after exenteration (p = 0.01). Negative margin status was associated with a longer disease-free survival (p=0.014). Nodal status at the time of exenteration was not associated with time to recurrence or progression, site of recurrence, type of post-operative treatment, early or late complications, or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in imaging and increased radical techniques, outcomes and complications after total pelvic exenteration in this cohort are similar to those described historically. Pelvic exenteration results in sustained survival in select patients, especially those that are young with recurrent disease and pathologically negative margins.
OBJECTIVE: The profile of women with gynecologic malignancies treated with pelvic exenteration has changed since the initial description of this procedure. We sought to evaluate our experience with pelvic exenteration over the last 20 years. METHODS:Patients who underwent anterior, posterior, or total pelvic exenteration for vulvar, vaginal, and cervical cancer at Barnes-Jewish Hospital between January 1, 1990 and August 1, 2009 were identified through hospital databases. Patient characteristics, the indications for the procedure, procedural modifications, and patient outcomes were retrospectively assessed. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square method, and survival data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified who had pelvic exenteration for cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Recurrent cervical cancer was the most common procedural indication. One year overall survival from pelvic exenteration for the entire cohort was 64%, with 44% of patients still living at 2 years and 34% at 50 months. Younger age was associated with improved overall survival after exenteration (p = 0.01). Negative margin status was associated with a longer disease-free survival (p=0.014). Nodal status at the time of exenteration was not associated with time to recurrence or progression, site of recurrence, type of post-operative treatment, early or late complications, or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in imaging and increased radical techniques, outcomes and complications after total pelvic exenteration in this cohort are similar to those described historically. Pelvic exenteration results in sustained survival in select patients, especially those that are young with recurrent disease and pathologically negative margins.
Authors: A Caceres; S M Mourton; B H Bochner; S R Gerst; L Liu; K M Alektiar; S V Kardos; R R Barakat; P J Boland; D S Chi Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-12-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Bernhard Liedl; Wael Y Khoder; Brigitte Ruhdorfer-Metz; Christian G Stief; Raphaela Waidelich Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: David A Iglesias; Shannon N Westin; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Marilyn Huang; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Shinya Matsuzaki; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Kazuhide Matsushima; Maximilian Klar; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Sabine Hannes; Johanna M Nijboer; Alexander Reinisch; Wolf O Bechstein; Nils Habbe Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 0.656
Authors: Alli M Straubhar; Andrew J Chi; Qin C Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Olga T Filippova; Mario M Leitao; Ibraheem O Awowole; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Vance A Broach; Elizabeth L Jewell; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Yukio Sonoda Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Bryan Fellman; Diana L Urbauer; Navdeep Pal; Michael M Frumovitz; Lois M Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Marilyn Huang; David A Iglesias; Shannon N Westin; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Kathleen M Schmeler; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 5.482