BACKGROUND: Fertility-sparing treatments (FSTs) have played a crucial role in the management of early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). The guidelines have recognized various approaches, depending on the tumor stage and other risk factors such as histotype and lymphovascular positivity. Much more debate has centered around the boundary within which these treatments should be considered. Indeed, these are methods to be reserved for ECC, but tumor size may represent the most significant limitation. In particular, there is no consensus on the strategy to be adopted in the case of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Therefore, this systematic review was to collect the literature evidence regarding the management of these patients. METHODS: Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched the Pubmed and Scopus databases was conducted in April 2022, from the date of the first publication. We made no limitation on the country. We included all studies containing data on disease-free survival, overall survival, recurrence rate (RR), or complete response rate (CRR) to chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 691 patients were analyzed regarding FST. Surgery-based FST showed an RR of between 0 and 42.9%, which drops to 12.9% after excluding the vaginal or minimally invasive approaches. Furthermore, papers regarding FST based on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) approach showed a CRR of between 21.4 and 84.5%, and an RR of between 0 and 22.2% CONCLUSION: This paper focused on the significant heterogeneity present in the clinical management of FST of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Nevertheless, from an oncological point of view, approaches limited to the minimally invasive or vaginal techniques showed the highest RR. Vice versa, the lack of standardization of NACT schemes and the wealth of confounders to be attributed to the histological features of the tumor make it difficult, if not impossible, to set a standard of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Fertility-sparing treatments (FSTs) have played a crucial role in the management of early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). The guidelines have recognized various approaches, depending on the tumor stage and other risk factors such as histotype and lymphovascular positivity. Much more debate has centered around the boundary within which these treatments should be considered. Indeed, these are methods to be reserved for ECC, but tumor size may represent the most significant limitation. In particular, there is no consensus on the strategy to be adopted in the case of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Therefore, this systematic review was to collect the literature evidence regarding the management of these patients. METHODS: Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched the Pubmed and Scopus databases was conducted in April 2022, from the date of the first publication. We made no limitation on the country. We included all studies containing data on disease-free survival, overall survival, recurrence rate (RR), or complete response rate (CRR) to chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 691 patients were analyzed regarding FST. Surgery-based FST showed an RR of between 0 and 42.9%, which drops to 12.9% after excluding the vaginal or minimally invasive approaches. Furthermore, papers regarding FST based on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) approach showed a CRR of between 21.4 and 84.5%, and an RR of between 0 and 22.2% CONCLUSION: This paper focused on the significant heterogeneity present in the clinical management of FST of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Nevertheless, from an oncological point of view, approaches limited to the minimally invasive or vaginal techniques showed the highest RR. Vice versa, the lack of standardization of NACT schemes and the wealth of confounders to be attributed to the histological features of the tumor make it difficult, if not impossible, to set a standard of treatment.
Authors: David Cibula; Richard Pötter; François Planchamp; Elisabeth Avall-Lundqvist; Daniela Fischerova; Christine Haie Meder; Christhardt Köhler; Fabio Landoni; Sigurd Lax; Jacob Christian Lindegaard; Umesh Mahantshetty; Patrice Mathevet; W Glenn McCluggage; Mary McCormack; Raj Naik; Remi Nout; Sandro Pignata; Jordi Ponce; Denis Querleu; Francesco Raspagliesi; Alexandros Rodolakis; Karl Tamussino; Pauline Wimberger; Maria Rosaria Raspollini Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Nadia A du Fossé; Marie-Louise P van der Hoorn; Jan M M van Lith; Saskia le Cessie; Eileen E L O Lashley Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: D Y Cao; J X Yang; X H Wu; Y L Chen; L Li; K J Liu; M H Cui; X Xie; Y M Wu; B H Kong; G H Zhu; Y Xiang; J H Lang; K Shen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Carlo Ronsini; Maria Cristina Solazzo; Nicolò Bizzarri; Domenico Ambrosio; Marco La Verde; Marco Torella; Raffaela Maria Carotenuto; Luigi Cobellis; Nicola Colacurci; Pasquale De Franciscis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 4.339