| Literature DB >> 34845668 |
Christos Tsaousidis1, Bernhard Kraemer2, Stefan Kommoss2, Andreas Hartkopf2, Sara Brucker2, Katrin Neis2, Juergen Andress2, Felix Neis3.
Abstract
The shorter cervical segment after classic radical trachelectomy (RT) imposes a number of pregnancy associated risk factors. In this aspect, large conization (LC) could be an oncologically safe alternative to RT in young women with early stage cervical cancer who want to spare their fertility. Our aim was to evaluate fertility-sparing surgical treatment of early stage cervical cancer after the introduction of LC. Our objectives were to assess surgical, oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes. We retrospectively investigated oncological and fertility outcomes of patients who underwent LC in a large oncological single University centre between 2009 and 2014. Medical records were reviewed and analysed for surgical, oncological, fertility and obstetric outcomes. Postal questionnaires were collected to further evaluate and validate the fertility and obstetric outcomes. A total of 23 LCs were analysed. Seven patients had to undergo secondary radical hysterectomy after LC due to unclear resection margins. Nine of 16 women tried to conceive, of which all nine became pregnant. Seven patients underwent a prophylactic cerclage between 13 and 16 gestational weeks and seven women delivered 9 children; the majority of women conceived spontaneously. Follow-up time was a median of 3.9 years (2.6-8 years). There was no relapse of cervical cancer in the investigated timeframe. Early stage cervical cancers treated by LC are associated with excellent oncological outcomes. LC appears to be a safe option for eligible women who intend to maintain their fertility.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; Fertility preservation; Large conization; Trachelectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34845668 PMCID: PMC8863693 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00807-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Sci ISSN: 1933-7191 Impact factor: 3.060
Fig. 1Patient with residual tumour after conization in the quadrant from 3 to 6 o’clock. LC specimen with scale (cm and inches): (A) view of the cervical canal, (B) view from the side. And postoperative situs without (C) and with sutures (D)
Patients characteristics (BMI, body mass index; LC, large conization)
| Characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| Median (range) | 32 (25–37) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | ||
| Median (range) | 23.2 (18.8–38.1) | |
| FIGO stage ( | Classification of 2010 | Classification of 2018 |
| 1a1 | 6 (26.1) | 5 (21.7) |
| 1a2 | 4 (17.4) | 4 (17.4) |
| 1b1 | 13 (56.5) | 8 (34.8) |
| 1b2 | 0 (0) | 6 (26.1) |
| Maximal tumour size after final surgery (mm (range)) | ||
| Median tumour size (mm (range)) | 9 (2–38) | |
| Median tumour size if after LC R0 (mm (range)) | 7 (2–32) | |
| Median tumour size if after LC R1 (mm (range)) | 32 (10–38) | |
| Depth of infiltration after final surgery (mm (range)) | ||
| Median depth of infiltration if after LC R0 (mm (range)) | 3.6 (1–10) | |
| Median depth of infiltration if after LC R1 (mm (range)) | 12 (5–34) | |
| Histological type, | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 13 (56.5) | |
| Squamous | 10 (43.5) | |
| Grade, | ||
| 1 | 2 (8.7) | |
| 2 | 14 (60.9) | |
| 3 | 7 (30.4) | |
| Pelvic node count | ||
| Median (range) | 21.5 (3 – 39) | |
| Deep of LC (mm (range)) | ||
| Deep of LC if R0, median (mm (range)) | 22 (11–37) | |
| Deep of LC if R1, median (mm (range)) | 33 (15–50) | |
Comparison of tumours when large conization R0 and R1 (LC, large conization)
| LC R0, | LC R1, | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Histological type of tumour | Adenocarcinoma ( | 9 (56.25%) | 4 (57.1%) |
| Squamous ( | 7 (43.75%) | 3 (42.9%) | |
| Grading | G1 | 2 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) |
| G2 | 11 (68.75%) | 3 (42.9%) | |
| G3 | 3 (18.75%) | 4 (57.1%) | |
| Size | Median size of tumour after final histological examination (mm (range)) | 7 (2–32) | 32 (10–38) |
| Deep of LC Median (mm (range)) | 22 (11–37) | 33 (15–50) | |
| Median depth of infiltration if after LC (mm (range)) | 3.6 (1–10) | 12 (5–34) | |
| Lymphovascular involvement | L1 ( | 3 (18.75%) | 1 (14.3%) |
Follow-up if large conization was successful
| All | |
|---|---|
| Follow-up time (months): median (range) | 58 (31–96) |
| Disease recurrence, | 0 (0) |
| Regular menstruation, | 13 (81.3) |
| Secondary hysterectomy, | 2 (12.5) |
Fertility outcome of the patients after a large conization (LC, large conization; IVF, in vitro fertilisation; EUG, extrauterine gestation; PROM, prelabor rupture of membranes)
| All | |
|---|---|
| Patients who became pregnant, | 9 (100) |
| Patients who had a childbirth, | 7 (77.8) |
| No. of pregnancies, | 14 |
| Childbirths, | 9 (64.3) |
| Spontaneously miscarriages < 15 weeks, | 4 (28.6) |
| EUG, | 1 (7.1) |
| Conception, | |
| Spontaneously | 10 (71.4) |
| IVF | 4 (28.6) |
| Cerclage, | 9 |
| Cerclage week, median (range) | 15.1 (13–16) |
| Delivery week | 36 (28–39) |
| 24 + 0–33 + 6 | 2 |
| 34 + 0–36 + 6 | 1 |
| > 37 + 0 | 6 |
| Art of delivery, | |
| Vaginal delivery | 1 (11) |
| Caesarean section | 8 (89) |
| Complications | |
| PROM, | 2 (26 and 28) |