OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to survey gynecologic oncologists and fellows-in-training regarding the role of radical trachelectomy (RT) and conservative surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2012 to September 2012, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology member practitioners (n = 1353) and gynecologic oncology fellows (n = 156) were sent group-specific surveys investigating current practice, training, and the future of RT for early-stage cervical cancer management. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of practitioners (n = 303) and 24.4% of fellows (n = 38) completed the surveys. Of the practitioners, 50% (n = 148) report performing RT, 98% (n = 269) support RT as treatment for squamous carcinoma, and 71% (n = 195) confirm the use of RT for adenocarcinoma. Most practitioners offer RT treatment for stages IA2 to IB1 smaller than 2 cm (n = 209, 76.8%) regardless of grade (77.7%) or lymph vascular space invasion (n = 211, 79.3%). Only 8% (n = 23) of practitioners feel that RT is appropriate for stage IBI larger than 2 cm. Respectively, both practitioners and fellows most frequently perform robotic-assisted (47.0%, n = 101 and 59.1%, n = 13) and abdominal (40.5%, n = 87 and 68.2%, n = 15) RT approaches. After training, fellows project the use of robotic-assisted (71%, n = 22) or abdominal methods (58.1%, n = 18). Overall, 75% (n = 227) of practitioners and 60% (n = 23) of fellows speculate that over the next 5 years, less radical procedures will be used to manage early-stage cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that practitioners and fellows believe RT remains an option for early-stage cervical cancer patients. However, a significant proportion of all respondents believe that less radical surgery may be a future consideration for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to survey gynecologic oncologists and fellows-in-training regarding the role of radical trachelectomy (RT) and conservative surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2012 to September 2012, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology member practitioners (n = 1353) and gynecologic oncology fellows (n = 156) were sent group-specific surveys investigating current practice, training, and the future of RT for early-stage cervical cancer management. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of practitioners (n = 303) and 24.4% of fellows (n = 38) completed the surveys. Of the practitioners, 50% (n = 148) report performing RT, 98% (n = 269) support RT as treatment for squamous carcinoma, and 71% (n = 195) confirm the use of RT for adenocarcinoma. Most practitioners offer RT treatment for stages IA2 to IB1 smaller than 2 cm (n = 209, 76.8%) regardless of grade (77.7%) or lymph vascular space invasion (n = 211, 79.3%). Only 8% (n = 23) of practitioners feel that RT is appropriate for stage IBI larger than 2 cm. Respectively, both practitioners and fellows most frequently perform robotic-assisted (47.0%, n = 101 and 59.1%, n = 13) and abdominal (40.5%, n = 87 and 68.2%, n = 15) RT approaches. After training, fellows project the use of robotic-assisted (71%, n = 22) or abdominal methods (58.1%, n = 18). Overall, 75% (n = 227) of practitioners and 60% (n = 23) of fellows speculate that over the next 5 years, less radical procedures will be used to manage early-stage cervical cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that practitioners and fellows believe RT remains an option for early-stage cervical cancerpatients. However, a significant proportion of all respondents believe that less radical surgery may be a future consideration for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer.