1
|
Aubrey C, Pond GR, Helpman L, Vicus D, Elit L, Plante M, Lau S, Kwon JS, Altman AD, Willows K, Feigenberg T, Sabourin J, Samouelian V, Bernard L, Cockburn N, Saunders NB, Piedimonte S, Teo-Fortin LA, Kim SR, Sadeq N, Jang JH, Shamiya S, Nelson G. Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:1977-1985. [PMID: 36826114 PMCID: PMC9955159 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30020153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2023] [Revised: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare between cohorts. Within the total cohort, 238/1696 (14%) had no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen (122 MIS, 103 AH, and 13 VLH). The majority of cases in the cohort were FIGO 2018 stage IB1 (43.7%) and underwent a radical hysterectomy (81.9%). There was no statistical difference between stage, histology, and radical vs simple hysterectomy between the abdominal and minimally invasive groups. There were no significant differences in RFS (5-year: MIS/LVH 97.7%, AH 95.8%, p = 0.23) or OS (5-year: MIS/VLH 98.9%, AH 97.4%, p = 0.10), although event-rates were low. There were only two recurrences. In this large study including only patients with no residual cervical cancer on hysterectomy specimen, no significant differences in survival were seen by surgical approach. This may be due to the small number of events or due to no actual difference between the groups. Further studies are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christa Aubrey
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-780-432-8337
| | - Gregory R. Pond
- Department of Oncology, Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Limor Helpman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Danielle Vicus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Laurie Elit
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Marie Plante
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universite de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, QC G1R 2J6, Canada
| | - Susie Lau
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada
| | - Janice S. Kwon
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
| | - Alon D. Altman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Winnipeg Women’s Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0L8, Canada
| | - Karla Willows
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Center, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3K 4N1, Canada
| | - Tomer Feigenberg
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON L5B 1B8, Canada
| | - Jeanelle Sabourin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada
| | - Vanessa Samouelian
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada
| | - Laurence Bernard
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Norah Cockburn
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Nora-Beth Saunders
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Winnipeg Women’s Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0L8, Canada
| | - Sabrina Piedimonte
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Ly-Ann Teo-Fortin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universite de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, QC G1R 2J6, Canada
| | - Soyoun Rachel Kim
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Noor Sadeq
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Center, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3K 4N1, Canada
| | - Ji-Hyun Jang
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
| | - Sarah Shamiya
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T5H 3V9, Canada
| | - Gregg Nelson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ruengkhachorn I, Therasakvichya S, Warnnissorn M, Leelaphatanadit C, Sangkarat S, Srisombat J. Pathologic Risk Factors and Oncologic Outcomes in Early-stage Cervical Cancer Patients Treated by Radical Hysterectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy at a Thai University Hospital: A 7 year Retrospective Review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 16:5951-6. [PMID: 26320478 DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.14.5951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the rate of pathologic high-risk factors, intermediate-risk factors, and treatment outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHPL). MATERIALS AND METHODS Medical records of stage IA-IIA1 cervical cancer patients who underwent RHPL during the 2006 to 2012 time period and patient follow-up data until December 2013 were reviewed. RESULTS Of 331 patients, 52 women (15.7%) had pathologic high-risk factors and 59 women (17.8%) had intermediate-risk factors without high-risk factors. All studied patients had an initial complete response. At median follow-up time of 40.9 months (range 1-103.3 months) and mean follow-up time of 43.3±25.3 months, 37 women had disease recurrence and 4 women had died of disease. The most common site of recurrence was the pelvis (64.8%). Five- year and 10-year disease free survival rates were 96.1% and 91.5%, respectively. Five-year and 10-year overall survival rates were 100% and 99.4%, respectively. Independent factors related to recurrence were pelvic node metastasis (odds ratio [OR], 2.670; 95%CI, 1.001-7.119), and >1/3 cervical stromal invasion (OR, 3.763; 95%CI, 1.483-9.549). CONCLUSIONS The rates of pathologic high-risk and intermediate-risk factors should be considered and disclosed when counseling patients regarding primary treatment by RHPL. Oncologic outcomes of primary surgical treatment for early-stage cervical carcinoma were found to be excellent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Ruengkhachorn
- Gynecologic Oncology Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand E-mail :
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pradhan AP, Menon S, Rekhi B, Deodhar K. An Audit of 204 Histopathology Reports Over Three Years of Carcinoma of Cervix: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Centre. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16:5643-5. [PMID: 26320429 DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.14.5643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim was to see compliance to minimum data set information in carcinoma cervix histopathology reports from a team of 13 pathologists; and also to analyse the distribution of parameters like tumor size, grade, depth of cervical stromal invasion, lymph node yield and pTNM stage. MATERIALS AND METHODS All pathology reports of radical hysterectomy for carcinoma cervix operated in house within a three year duration (2010-2012), (n=204) were retrieved from medical records and analyzed for the above parameters. RESULTS In 2010- 59 cases, in 2011- 67 cases and in 2012- 78 cases of carcinoma cervix underwent operations in our hospital. The median age was 50.5 years and the maximum T diameter was 2.8 cms in the reports of three years. Squamous carcinoma was the commonest subtype amongst all the tumors. It was noted that 60.8% of cases had cervical stromal involvement more than half the thickness of the cervical stroma. Parametrial involvement was seen in 4.82% of cases. pTNM Staging was not mentioned in 65.06% of the cases. The mean bilateral pelvic lymph node yield count in our study was 16.6 inclusive of all the three years. CONCLUSIONS Compliance with provision of a minimum dataset in our team of 13 pathologists was generally good. Lymph node yield in our hands is reasonable, but constant striving for greater numbers should be made. pTNM staging should be more meticulously documented. Use of proformas /checklists is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anuja Prakash Pradhan
- Anuja Prakash Pradhan, Santosh Menon, Bharat Rekhi, Kedar Deodhar, Pathology, Surgical Pathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India E-mail :
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|