A-M Schmidt1, P Imesch, D Fink, H Egger. 1. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ana-maria.schmidt@usz.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the clinical experience at our clinic with pelvic exenteration as a treatment for cervical cancer with special regard to the indications and outcomes of specific patient groups. METHODS: Medical records of 282 women who underwent pelvic exenteration to treat cervical cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 70 patients (25%) underwent primary exenteration, and 212 (75%) underwent secondary exenteration. Exenteration was anterior for 14 (5%) patients, posterior for 6 (2%) and total for 262 (93%). The overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 41% at 5 years and 37% at 10 years. The disease-free survival at 5 years was 61%. For 133 patients for whom pelvic exenteration was a curative procedure, the OS was 64% at 5 years and 57% at 10 years. For cases of pelvic exenteration as a palliative intervention, the OS was 19% at 5 years and 18% at 10 years. No difference was seen in the OS at 5 years between patients who received primary and secondary operations. No significant difference in the OS was found regardless of whether the patients had positive pelvic lymph nodes, whereas in cases of paraaortic lymph node metastasis, the OS was significantly lower. Out of all of the procedures, 139 (49%) involved no perioperative or postoperative complications. One major complication was reported for 72 (26%) patients, two complications occurred for 42 patients (15%) and more than three complications were noted for 29 (10%) patients. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is an effective technique with a high percentage of long-term survivors. To the best of our knowledge, our study involves the largest published number of patients treated with pelvic exenteration for a single gynecological cancer and shows that previous contraindications for pelvic exenteration, such as lymph node metastasis (especially when confined to the pelvic lymph nodes), older age or palliative intent, should be reconsidered.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the clinical experience at our clinic with pelvic exenteration as a treatment for cervical cancer with special regard to the indications and outcomes of specific patient groups. METHODS: Medical records of 282 women who underwent pelvic exenteration to treat cervical cancer were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 70 patients (25%) underwent primary exenteration, and 212 (75%) underwent secondary exenteration. Exenteration was anterior for 14 (5%) patients, posterior for 6 (2%) and total for 262 (93%). The overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 41% at 5 years and 37% at 10 years. The disease-free survival at 5 years was 61%. For 133 patients for whom pelvic exenteration was a curative procedure, the OS was 64% at 5 years and 57% at 10 years. For cases of pelvic exenteration as a palliative intervention, the OS was 19% at 5 years and 18% at 10 years. No difference was seen in the OS at 5 years between patients who received primary and secondary operations. No significant difference in the OS was found regardless of whether the patients had positive pelvic lymph nodes, whereas in cases of paraaortic lymph node metastasis, the OS was significantly lower. Out of all of the procedures, 139 (49%) involved no perioperative or postoperative complications. One major complication was reported for 72 (26%) patients, two complications occurred for 42 patients (15%) and more than three complications were noted for 29 (10%) patients. CONCLUSION: Pelvic exenteration is an effective technique with a high percentage of long-term survivors. To the best of our knowledge, our study involves the largest published number of patients treated with pelvic exenteration for a single gynecological cancer and shows that previous contraindications for pelvic exenteration, such as lymph node metastasis (especially when confined to the pelvic lymph nodes), older age or palliative intent, should be reconsidered.
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Ryan S Turley; Jason L Sloane; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Menelaos Tzafetas; Anita Mitra; Maria Paraskevaidi; Zsolt Bodai; Ilkka Kalliala; Sarah Bowden; Konstantinos Lathouras; Francesca Rosini; Marcell Szasz; Adele Savage; Julia Balog; James McKenzie; Deirdre Lyons; Phillip Bennett; David MacIntyre; Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami; Zoltan Takats; Maria Kyrgiou Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 11.205
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