Dario R Roque1, Weiya Z Wysham1, John T Soper2. 1. Clinical Fellow, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Professor, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Surgery has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky carcinoma of the cervix. The mainstay of surgical management is radical hysterectomy; however, less radical procedures have a small but important role in the management of cervical tumors. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to discuss the literature behind the different procedures utilized in the management of cervical cancer, emphasizing the radical hysterectomy. In addition, we aimed to discuss ongoing trials looking at the utility of less radical surgeries as well as emerging technologies in the management of this disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a PubMed literature search for articles in the English language that pertained to the topic of surgical techniques and their outcomes in the treatment of cervical cancer. RESULTS: The minimally invasive approaches to radical hysterectomy appear to reduce morbidity without affecting oncological outcomes, although further data are needed looking at long-term outcomes with the robotic platform. Trials are currently ongoing looking at the role of less radical surgery for patients with low-risk disease and the feasibility of sentinel lymph node mapping. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky disease, and there is a clear advantage in the use of minimally invasive techniques to perform these procedures. However, pending ongoing trials, less radical surgery in patients with low-risk invasive disease as well as sentinel lymph node mapping may emerge as standards of care in selected patients with cervical carcinoma.
IMPORTANCE: Surgery has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky carcinoma of the cervix. The mainstay of surgical management is radical hysterectomy; however, less radical procedures have a small but important role in the management of cervical tumors. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to discuss the literature behind the different procedures utilized in the management of cervical cancer, emphasizing the radical hysterectomy. In addition, we aimed to discuss ongoing trials looking at the utility of less radical surgeries as well as emerging technologies in the management of this disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a PubMed literature search for articles in the English language that pertained to the topic of surgical techniques and their outcomes in the treatment of cervical cancer. RESULTS: The minimally invasive approaches to radical hysterectomy appear to reduce morbidity without affecting oncological outcomes, although further data are needed looking at long-term outcomes with the robotic platform. Trials are currently ongoing looking at the role of less radical surgery for patients with low-risk disease and the feasibility of sentinel lymph node mapping. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy has evolved into the standard therapy for nonbulky disease, and there is a clear advantage in the use of minimally invasive techniques to perform these procedures. However, pending ongoing trials, less radical surgery in patients with low-risk invasive disease as well as sentinel lymph node mapping may emerge as standards of care in selected patients with cervical carcinoma.
Authors: Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
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: K M Santos; I N F Gomes; R J Silva-Oliveira; F E Pinto; B G Oliveira; R C R Chagas; W Romão; R M V Reis; R I M A Ribeiro Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.411