Luisa Ter Glane1, Axel Hegele2,3, Uwe Wagner4, Jelena Boekhoff4. 1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany. 2. Urological Center Mittelhessen, DRK Hospital, Biedenkopf, Germany. 3. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany. 4. Department of Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological indication for pelvic exenteration (PE). It is an ultima ratio approach to cure advanced or recurring tumors. This study aimed to evaluate data from a Single Center Institution in order to assess morbidity, mortality and survival data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 24 patients, who underwent anterior (APE) or total PE (TPE) for cervical cancer at the University Hospital Marburg between 2011 and 2016, were extracted and retrospectively evaluated. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meyer method. RESULTS: Lymph node status was pN0, pN1 and pNX in 33.3%, 20.8% and 45.8% respectively. Negative margins could be achieved in 70.8%. A total of 16.7% of patients presented with metastatic disease, while 20.8%, 37.5% and 20.8% received 1, 2 or 3 modalities of treatment respectively; 20.8% underwent up-front PE. Predominant urinary diversion was an ileum conduit (66.7%). No complications were noted for 16.7%, major complications (≥Clavien Dindo 3) in 41.7%. Overall survival was 29.2% with a median overall survival (mOS) of 19.1 months. Curative PE was undertaken in 20 cases, with 2- and 3-year survival rates of 52.6% and 29.4% respectively. and a mOS of 24 months. Positive margins, metastatic disease, positive lymph nodes, TPE and a surgical time >6 h had a significant impact on OS. CONCLUSION: PE for cervical cancer remains a feasible option in cases of advanced or recurring tumors when alternative treatment options would fail. For selected patients it may represent a chance of cure with acceptable complication and satisfactory survival rates. Copyright 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological indication for pelvic exenteration (PE). It is an ultima ratio approach to cure advanced or recurring tumors. This study aimed to evaluate data from a Single Center Institution in order to assess morbidity, mortality and survival data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 24 patients, who underwent anterior (APE) or total PE (TPE) for cervical cancer at the University Hospital Marburg between 2011 and 2016, were extracted and retrospectively evaluated. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meyer method. RESULTS: Lymph node status was pN0, pN1 and pNX in 33.3%, 20.8% and 45.8% respectively. Negative margins could be achieved in 70.8%. A total of 16.7% of patients presented with metastatic disease, while 20.8%, 37.5% and 20.8% received 1, 2 or 3 modalities of treatment respectively; 20.8% underwent up-front PE. Predominant urinary diversion was an ileum conduit (66.7%). No complications were noted for 16.7%, major complications (≥Clavien Dindo 3) in 41.7%. Overall survival was 29.2% with a median overall survival (mOS) of 19.1 months. Curative PE was undertaken in 20 cases, with 2- and 3-year survival rates of 52.6% and 29.4% respectively. and a mOS of 24 months. Positive margins, metastatic disease, positive lymph nodes, TPE and a surgical time >6 h had a significant impact on OS. CONCLUSION: PE for cervical cancer remains a feasible option in cases of advanced or recurring tumors when alternative treatment options would fail. For selected patients it may represent a chance of cure with acceptable complication and satisfactory survival rates. Copyright 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research.
Authors: G Baiocchi; G C Guimaraes; R A Rosa Oliveira; L Y Kumagai; C C Faloppa; S Aguiar; M D Begnami; F A Soares; A Lopes Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Stephen Graves; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Anna E Strohl; Shohreh Shahabi; Wilberto Nieves-Neira Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: N de Gregorio; A de Gregorio; F Ebner; T W P Friedl; J Huober; R Hefty; M Wittau; W Janni; P Widschwendter Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: F Landoni; V Zanagnolo; P G Rosenberg; A Lopes; D Radice; L Bocciolone; G Aletti; G Parma; N Colombo; A Maggioni Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 5.482