Georgia A McCann1, Susanne K Taege1, Christina E Boutsicaris1, Gary S Phillips2, Eric L Eisenhauer1, Jeffrey M Fowler1, David M O'Malley1, Larry J Copeland1, David E Cohn1, Ritu Salani3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Wexner Medical Center at the Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. 2. Center for Biostatistics, The Wexner Medical Center at the Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Wexner Medical Center at the Ohio State University, Columbus OH, USA. Electronic address: ritu.salani@osumc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While it is known that positive surgical margins increase the risk of cervical cancer recurrence, little is known about the effect of close surgical margins (CSM). Therefore, we set out to determine the impact of margin status on recurrence and survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2010 with Stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. CSM were defined as ≤5mm; association with other clinicopathologic factors as well as recurrence and survival was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 119 patients, 75 (63%) with CSM had a recurrence rate of 24% compared to 9% without CSM. Though not independently associated with recurrence, CSM were significantly associated with positive lymph nodes (44% vs. 18%), positive parametria (33.3% vs. 2.3%), larger tumors (3.5 vs. 2.5cm), greater depth of stromal invasion (DOI) (84% vs. 33%), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (61.3% vs. 34.1%). We failed to find an association between adjuvant therapy and recurrence in those with CSM. Exploratory analysis revealed that a surgical margin of ≤2mm was significantly associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (36% vs. 9%, p=0.009) as well as loco-regional recurrence (22% vs. 4%, p=0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical margins of ≤5mm on radical hysterectomy specimens are often associated with other high or intermediate risk factors for recurrence. While not a proven independent risk factor, the distance to surgical margin may warrant further investigation as an intermediate risk factor along with tumor size, DOI and LVSI.
OBJECTIVE: While it is known that positive surgical margins increase the risk of cervical cancer recurrence, little is known about the effect of close surgical margins (CSM). Therefore, we set out to determine the impact of margin status on recurrence and survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy from 2000 to 2010 with Stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. CSM were defined as ≤5mm; association with other clinicopathologic factors as well as recurrence and survival was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 119 patients, 75 (63%) with CSM had a recurrence rate of 24% compared to 9% without CSM. Though not independently associated with recurrence, CSM were significantly associated with positive lymph nodes (44% vs. 18%), positive parametria (33.3% vs. 2.3%), larger tumors (3.5 vs. 2.5cm), greater depth of stromal invasion (DOI) (84% vs. 33%), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (61.3% vs. 34.1%). We failed to find an association between adjuvant therapy and recurrence in those with CSM. Exploratory analysis revealed that a surgical margin of ≤2mm was significantly associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (36% vs. 9%, p=0.009) as well as loco-regional recurrence (22% vs. 4%, p=0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical margins of ≤5mm on radical hysterectomy specimens are often associated with other high or intermediate risk factors for recurrence. While not a proven independent risk factor, the distance to surgical margin may warrant further investigation as an intermediate risk factor along with tumor size, DOI and LVSI.
Authors: R A Samlal; J van der Velden; M S Schilthuis; D González González; F J Ten Kate; A A Hart; F B Lammes Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nabil Manzour; Luis Chiva; Enrique Chacón; Nerea Martin-Calvo; Felix Boria; José A Minguez; Juan L Alcazar Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-04-16 Impact factor: 4.339