Silvana Pedra Nobre 1 , Varvara Mazina 2 , Alexia Iasonos 3 , Qin C Zhou 3 , Yukio Sonoda 1 , Ginger Gardner 1 , Kara Long-Roche 1 , Mario M Leitao 1 , Nadeem R Abu-Rustum 1 , Jennifer J Mueller 4 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine surveillance patterns of stage I cervical cancer after cervical conization. METHODS: A 25-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Provider demographics, surveillance during year 1, years 1-3, and >3 years after cervical conization, use of pelvic examination, cytology, Human papillomavirus testing, colposcopy, and endocervical curettage were queried. Data were analyzed. RESULTS: 239/1175 (20.1%) responses were collected over a 5-week study period. All providers identified as gynecologic oncologists. During year 1, 66.7% of providers perform pelvic examination and 37.1% perform cytology every 3 months. During years 1-3, 61.6% perform pelvic examination and 46% perform cytology every 6 months. At >3 years, 54.4% perform pelvic examination every 6 months and 43% perform annual pelvic examination. 66.7% of respondents perform cytology annually, and 51.9% perform annual Human papilloma virus testing. 85% of providers do not offer routine colposcopy and 60% do not offer endocervical curettage at any point during 5-year follow-up. 76.3% of respondents screen patients for Human papilloma virus vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no specific surveillance guidelines for patients with stage I cervical cancer treated with cervical conization. The most common surveillance practice reported is pelvic examination with or without cytology every 3 months in year 1 and every 6 months thereafter. However, wide variation exists in visit frequency, cytology, and Human papillomavirus testing, and there is a clear trend away from using colposcopy and endocervical curettage. These disparate surveillance practices indicate a need for well-defined, uniform surveillance guidelines. © IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
OBJECTIVES: To determine surveillance patterns of stage I cervical cancer after cervical conization. METHODS: A 25-question electronic survey was sent to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Provider demographics, surveillance during year 1, years 1-3 , and >3 years after cervical conization, use of pelvic examination, cytology, Human papillomavirus testing, colposcopy, and endocervical curettage were queried. Data were analyzed. RESULTS: 239/1175 (20.1%) responses were collected over a 5-week study period. All providers identified as gynecologic oncologists. During year 1, 66.7% of providers perform pelvic examination and 37.1% perform cytology every 3 months. During years 1-3 , 61.6% perform pelvic examination and 46% perform cytology every 6 months. At >3 years, 54.4% perform pelvic examination every 6 months and 43% perform annual pelvic examination. 66.7% of respondents perform cytology annually, and 51.9% perform annual Human papilloma virus testing. 85% of providers do not offer routine colposcopy and 60% do not offer endocervical curettage at any point during 5-year follow-up. 76.3% of respondents screen patients for Human papilloma virus vaccination . CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no specific surveillance guidelines for patients with stage I cervical cancer treated with cervical conization. The most common surveillance practice reported is pelvic examination with or without cytology every 3 months in year 1 and every 6 months thereafter. However, wide variation exists in visit frequency, cytology, and Human papillomavirus testing, and there is a clear trend away from using colposcopy and endocervical curettage. These disparate surveillance practices indicate a need for well-defined, uniform surveillance guidelines. © IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Entities: Disease
Gene
Species
Keywords:
cervical cancer; surgical oncology; surgical procedures, operative
Year: 2020
PMID: 32499392 PMCID: PMC8336762 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001338
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer ISSN: 1048-891X Impact factor: 3.437