Literature DB >> 32964259

Does a pre-operative conization improve disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer?

Louise Benoit1, Meriem Koual2,3,4, Huyen-Thu Nguyen-Xuan2,3, Vincent Balaya2,3, Claude Nos2, Rosa Montero-Macías2, Anne-Sophie Bats2,3,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Ever since the recent findings showing the lack of benefit of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open surgery in early-stage cervical cancer, gynecologists have tried to explain these results. The primary objective of our study was to assess the impact of pre-operative conization on disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage cervical cancer. The secondary objective was to analyze the peri-operative morbidity associated with a pre-operative conization.
METHODS: All patients undergoing a surgical management for early-stage squamous carcinoma or adenocarcinoma cervical cancer (IA1, IA2, IB1 and IB2 FIGO 2018) at a French university hospital from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively included. We examined the association between conization and DFS using a Cox regression model. We also analyzed the morbidity associated with pre-operative conization.
RESULTS: 48.4% (44/91) of the patients had a pre-operative conization (defined by a conization up to 90 days prior to surgery). 86.8% underwent MIS. There was a non-significant increase in the DFS with one patient presenting a recurrence in the conization group (2.3%) and six (12.8%) in the no conization group (log rank = 0.09). In univariate analysis, conization, definitive FIGO stage and pre-operative tumor size were associated with DFS (p < 0.2). Only pre-operative tumor size was significantly associated with DFS in multivariate analysis. There was a non-significant increase of adverse events in the conization group (43.2% in the conization group versus 23.4%, p = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: Conization, through a reduction of tumor size, could improve DFS. Carefully selected patients could still benefit from minimally invasive surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Conization; Disease-free survival; Minimally invasive surgery

Year:  2020        PMID: 32964259     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05798-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  17 in total

1.  Preoperative Conization and Risk of Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Jvan Casarin; Giorgio Bogani; Andrea Papadia; Antonino Ditto; Ciro Pinelli; Simone Garzon; Nicoletta Donadello; Antonio Simone Laganà; Antonella Cromi; Michael Mueller; Francesco Raspagliesi; Fabio Ghezzi
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2020-04-19       Impact factor: 4.137

2.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Sharyn N Lewin; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-06-24       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer.

Authors:  Se Ik Kim; Jae Hyun Cho; Aeran Seol; Young Im Kim; Maria Lee; Hee Seung Kim; Hyun Hoon Chung; Jae-Weon Kim; Noh Hyun Park; Yong-Sang Song
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-01-12       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Comprehensive analysis of patient outcome after local recurrence of locally advanced cervical cancer treated with concomitant chemoradiation and image-guided adaptive brachytherapy.

Authors:  F Mignot; S Gouy; A Schernberg; S Bockel; S Espenel; A Maulard; A Leary; C Genestie; P Annede; M Kissel; I Fumagalli; P Pautier; E Deutsch; C Haie-Meder; P Morice; C Chargari
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Laparoscopic versus open abdominal management of cervical cancer: long-term results from a propensity-matched analysis.

Authors:  Giorgio Bogani; Antonella Cromi; Stefano Uccella; Maurizio Serati; Jvan Casarin; Ciro Pinelli; Fabio Ghezzi
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz; Rene Pareja; Aldo Lopez; Marcelo Vieira; Reitan Ribeiro; Alessandro Buda; Xiaojian Yan; Yao Shuzhong; Naven Chetty; David Isla; Mariano Tamura; Tao Zhu; Kristy P Robledo; Val Gebski; Rebecca Asher; Vanessa Behan; James L Nicklin; Robert L Coleman; Andreas Obermair
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Patterns of recurrence and survival after abdominal versus laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Tae-Wook Kong; Suk-Joon Chang; Xianling Piao; Jiheum Paek; Yonghee Lee; Eun Ju Lee; Mison Chun; Hee-Sug Ryu
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 1.730

9.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Andrew J Lake; Susan Scott; Recinda L Sherman; Anne-Michelle Noone; Nadia Howlader; S Jane Henley; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Jiemin Ma; Betsy A Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Yue-Mei Jin; Shan-Shan Liu; Jun Chen; Yan-Nan Chen; Chen-Chen Ren
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Villoglandular adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anna K Dietl; Matthias W Beckmann; Konrad Aumann
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 2.344

2.  The Role of Conization before Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer including High Risk Factors of Recurrence: Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Chi-Son Chang; Ji Song Min; Ki Hyeon Song; Chel Hun Choi; Tae-Joong Kim; Jeong-Won Lee; Byoung-Gie Kim; Yoo-Young Lee
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 6.575

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.