Manas Chakrabarti1, Andy Nordin2, Juneida Khodabocus3. 1. Manipal Hospitals, Salt Lake, Kolkata, India. 2. East Kent Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital, Kent, UK. 3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With an estimated 570,000 new cases reported globally in 2018, and increasing numbers of new cases in countries without established human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide. The majority of global disease burden (around 85%) is in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with estimates of cervical cancer being the second most common cancer in women in such regions. As it commonly affects younger women, cervical cancer has the greatest impact on years of life lost (YLL) and adverse socioeconomic outcomes compared to all other cancers in women. Management of cervical cancer depends on tumour stage. Radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy is the standard primary treatment modality for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2019) 1B1 to 1B3 disease. However, for larger primary tumours, radical hysterectomy is less commonly recommended. This is mainly due to a high incidence of unfavourable histopathological parameters, which require adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (chemotherapy given with radiotherapy treatment). CCRT is the standard of care and is widely used as first-line treatment for cervical cancer considered to be not curable with surgery alone (i.e.those with locally advanced disease). However, a sizable cohort of women managed with primary CCRT will have residual disease within the cervix following treatment. Debulking' hysterectomy to remove (debulk) the primary tumour in locally advanced disease, prior to CCRT, may be an alternative management strategy, avoiding the potential need for surgery for residual cervical disease following CCRT, which may be more extensive, or have increased morbidity due to CCRT. However, this strategy may subject more women to unnecessary surgery and its inherent risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and harms of debulking hysterectomy (simple or radical) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2021) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2021). We also searched other registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists up to 12 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for locally advanced FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical malignancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied Cochrane methodology, with two review authors independently assessing whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We planned to apply standard Cochrane methodological procedures to analyse data and risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. We did not identify any studies assessing the validity of debulking hysterectomy for these women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer.
BACKGROUND: With an estimated 570,000 new cases reported globally in 2018, and increasing numbers of new cases in countries without established human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide. The majority of global disease burden (around 85%) is in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with estimates of cervical cancer being the second most common cancer in women in such regions. As it commonly affects younger women, cervical cancer has the greatest impact on years of life lost (YLL) and adverse socioeconomic outcomes compared to all other cancers in women. Management of cervical cancer depends on tumour stage. Radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy is the standard primary treatment modality for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2019) 1B1 to 1B3 disease. However, for larger primary tumours, radical hysterectomy is less commonly recommended. This is mainly due to a high incidence of unfavourable histopathological parameters, which require adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (chemotherapy given with radiotherapy treatment). CCRT is the standard of care and is widely used as first-line treatment for cervical cancer considered to be not curable with surgery alone (i.e.those with locally advanced disease). However, a sizable cohort of women managed with primary CCRT will have residual disease within the cervix following treatment. Debulking' hysterectomy to remove (debulk) the primary tumour in locally advanced disease, prior to CCRT, may be an alternative management strategy, avoiding the potential need for surgery for residual cervical disease following CCRT, which may be more extensive, or have increased morbidity due to CCRT. However, this strategy may subject more women to unnecessary surgery and its inherent risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and harms of debulking hysterectomy (simple or radical) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2021) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2021). We also searched other registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists up to 12 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for locally advanced FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical malignancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied Cochrane methodology, with two review authors independently assessing whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We planned to apply standard Cochrane methodological procedures to analyse data and risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. We did not identify any studies assessing the validity of debulking hysterectomy for these women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer.
Authors: J P Micha; B H Goldstein; M A Rettenmaier; J V Brown; C R John; M Markman Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Neerja Bhatla; Jonathan S Berek; Mauricio Cuello Fredes; Lynette A Denny; Seija Grenman; Kanishka Karunaratne; Sean T Kehoe; Ikuo Konishi; Alexander B Olawaiye; Jaime Prat; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan; James Brierley; David Mutch; Denis Querleu; David Cibula; Michael Quinn; Hennie Botha; Lax Sigurd; Laurel Rice; Hee-Sug Ryu; Hextan Ngan; Johanna Mäenpää; Andri Andrijono; Gatot Purwoto; Amita Maheshwari; Uttam D Bafna; Marie Plante; Jayashree Natarajan Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: U Mahantshetty; G Lavanya; S Grover; C A Akinfenwa; H Carvalho; N Amornwichet Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; C Mathers; D M Parkin; M Piñeros; A Znaor; F Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.396