Holm Eggemann1, Tanja Ignatov1, Christina Henrike Geyken1, Stephan Seitz2, Atanas Ignatov3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Otto-von-Guericke University, G.-Hauptmann Str. 35, 39108, Magdeburg, Germany. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Otto-von-Guericke University, G.-Hauptmann Str. 35, 39108, Magdeburg, Germany. atanas.ignatov@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elderly women with cervical cancer receive less therapy in comparison with their younger counterparts. The exact reason(s) for this treatment strategy remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry-based study of 1559 patients with cervical cancer. The primary outcome was the reason for not performing the indicated treatment. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 67.8 months. A total of 956 women were eligible for analysis: 693 (64.2%) were younger than 60 years and 387 (35.8%) were aged 61 years old and older. Elderly women were more likely to have undifferentiated cervical cancer at an advanced stage. For early stage (stage IA1-IIA), tumors patients 61 years old and older were less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.77] and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.66) compared with the group of patients aged < 60 years. The rate of lymphadenectomy was similar in both age groups. Patients 61 years old and older with advanced stage (IIB-IV) cervical cancer were also less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.42; 95% CI 0.27-0.66], lymphadenectomy (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20-0.48) compared with patients aged < 60 years. Notably, the rate of indicated but not performed therapies proportionally increased with an increase in patient age and the most important reason for this phenomenon was the failing of recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly women with cervical cancer are undertreated and this is more likely because the therapy was not recommended.
BACKGROUND: Elderly women with cervical cancer receive less therapy in comparison with their younger counterparts. The exact reason(s) for this treatment strategy remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry-based study of 1559 patients with cervical cancer. The primary outcome was the reason for not performing the indicated treatment. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 67.8 months. A total of 956 women were eligible for analysis: 693 (64.2%) were younger than 60 years and 387 (35.8%) were aged 61 years old and older. Elderly women were more likely to have undifferentiated cervical cancer at an advanced stage. For early stage (stage IA1-IIA), tumorspatients 61 years old and older were less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.39; 95% CI 0.20-0.77] and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21-0.66) compared with the group of patients aged < 60 years. The rate of lymphadenectomy was similar in both age groups. Patients 61 years old and older with advanced stage (IIB-IV) cervical cancer were also less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.42; 95% CI 0.27-0.66], lymphadenectomy (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20-0.48) compared with patients aged < 60 years. Notably, the rate of indicated but not performed therapies proportionally increased with an increase in patient age and the most important reason for this phenomenon was the failing of recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly women with cervical cancer are undertreated and this is more likely because the therapy was not recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical cancer; Elderly; Lymphadenectomy; Radiation; Radical surgery
Authors: T Pignon; J C Horiot; M Bolla; H van Poppel; H Bartelink; F Roelofsen; F Pene; A Gerard; N Einhorn; T D Nguyen; M Vanglabbeke; P Scalliet Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Kristen J Pepin; Larissa A Meyer; Joel T Clemmer; Karen H Lu; Laurel W Rice; Shitanshu Uppal; John O Schorge; Marcela G Del Carmen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jason D Wright; Randall K Gibb; Sajeena Geevarghese; Matthew A Powell; Thomas J Herzog; David G Mutch; Perry W Grigsby; Feng Gao; Kathryn M Trinkaus; Janet S Rader Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Kah Poh Loh; Paul A Bain; Rebecca A Silliman; Tammy Hshieh; Gregory A Abel; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Jane A Driver; William Dale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 50.717