Analysis of risk factors for recurrence in cervical cancer patients after fertility-sparing treatment: The FERTIlity Sparing Surgery retrospective multicenter study.


Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2023
Historique:
received: 05 08 2022
revised: 11 11 2022
accepted: 15 11 2022
medline: 4 4 2023
pubmed: 26 11 2022
entrez: 25 11 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer should, in principle, follow identical algorithms to that in patients without future reproductive plans. In recent years, a trend toward nonradical procedures, such as conization or simple trachelectomy, has become apparent in medical literature, because of their associations with better pregnancy outcomes. However, the published reports included small numbers of patients and heterogenous treatment strategies to ascertain the safety of such approaches. This study aimed to collect multi-institutional data regarding the oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer and to identify prognostic risk factors, including the influence of the radicality of individual cervical procedures. Patients aged 18 to 40 years with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 stage IA1 with positive lymphovascular space invasion or ≥IA2 cervical cancer who underwent any type of fertility-sparing procedure were eligible for this retrospective observational study, regardless of their histotype, tumor grade, and history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Associations between disease- and treatment-related characteristics with the risk of recurrence were analyzed. A total of 733 patients from 44 institutions across 13 countries were included in this study. Almost half of the patients had stage IB1 cervical cancer (49%), and two-thirds of patients were nulliparous (66%). After a median follow-up of 72 months, 51 patients (7%) experienced recurrence, of whom 19 (2.6%) died because of the disease. The most common sites of recurrence were the cervix (53%) and pelvic nodes (22%). The risk of recurrence was 3 times higher in patients with tumors >2 cm in size than in patients with smaller tumors, irrespective of the treatment radicality (19.4% vs 5.7%; hazard ratio, 2.982; 95% confidence interval, 1.383-6.431; P=.005). The recurrence risk in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size did not differ between patients who underwent radical trachelectomy and patients who underwent nonradical (conization and simple trachelectomy) cervical procedures (P=.957), regardless of tumor size subcategory (<1 or 1-2 cm) or lymphovascular space invasion. Nonradical fertility-sparing cervical procedures were not associated with an increased risk of recurrence compared with radical procedures in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size in this large, multicenter retrospective study. The risk of recurrence after any type of fertility-sparing procedure was significantly greater in patients with tumors >2 cm in size.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer should, in principle, follow identical algorithms to that in patients without future reproductive plans. In recent years, a trend toward nonradical procedures, such as conization or simple trachelectomy, has become apparent in medical literature, because of their associations with better pregnancy outcomes. However, the published reports included small numbers of patients and heterogenous treatment strategies to ascertain the safety of such approaches.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to collect multi-institutional data regarding the oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer and to identify prognostic risk factors, including the influence of the radicality of individual cervical procedures.
STUDY DESIGN
Patients aged 18 to 40 years with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 stage IA1 with positive lymphovascular space invasion or ≥IA2 cervical cancer who underwent any type of fertility-sparing procedure were eligible for this retrospective observational study, regardless of their histotype, tumor grade, and history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Associations between disease- and treatment-related characteristics with the risk of recurrence were analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 733 patients from 44 institutions across 13 countries were included in this study. Almost half of the patients had stage IB1 cervical cancer (49%), and two-thirds of patients were nulliparous (66%). After a median follow-up of 72 months, 51 patients (7%) experienced recurrence, of whom 19 (2.6%) died because of the disease. The most common sites of recurrence were the cervix (53%) and pelvic nodes (22%). The risk of recurrence was 3 times higher in patients with tumors >2 cm in size than in patients with smaller tumors, irrespective of the treatment radicality (19.4% vs 5.7%; hazard ratio, 2.982; 95% confidence interval, 1.383-6.431; P=.005). The recurrence risk in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size did not differ between patients who underwent radical trachelectomy and patients who underwent nonradical (conization and simple trachelectomy) cervical procedures (P=.957), regardless of tumor size subcategory (<1 or 1-2 cm) or lymphovascular space invasion.
CONCLUSION
Nonradical fertility-sparing cervical procedures were not associated with an increased risk of recurrence compared with radical procedures in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size in this large, multicenter retrospective study. The risk of recurrence after any type of fertility-sparing procedure was significantly greater in patients with tumors >2 cm in size.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36427596
pii: S0002-9378(22)02188-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.11.1295
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Observational Study Multicenter Study Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

443.e1-443.e10

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Jiri Slama (J)

First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: Jiri.Slama@vfn.cz.

Ingo Bernard Runnebaum (IB)

Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.

Giovanni Scambia (G)

Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Rome, Italy.

Martina Aida Angeles (MA)

Claudius Regaud Institute - University Cancer Institute, Toulouse, France.

Kiarash Bahrehmand (K)

Department of Gynecology, Hungarian National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary.

Stefan Kommoss (S)

Department of Women's Health, Tuebingen University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany.

Anna Fagotti (A)

Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Rome, Italy.

Fabrice Narducci (F)

Department of Gynecology Oncology, Oscar Lambret Cancer Center, Lille, France.

Olga Matylevich (O)

Gynecologic Oncology Department, N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus.

Jessica Holly (J)

Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.

Fabio Martinelli (F)

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori - Milan, Milan, Italy.

Meriem Koual (M)

Gynecologic and Breast Oncologic Surgery Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France.

Viacheslav Kopetskyi (V)

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Ahmed El-Balat (A)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Clinic Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Spital Uster, Women's Hospital, Uster, Switzerland.

Giacomo Corrado (G)

Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Rome, Italy.

Mihai Emil Căpîlna (ME)

First Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, "George Emil Palade" University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureș, Târgu Mureș, Romania.

Willibald Schröder (W)

Gynaekologicum Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Zoltán Novàk (Z)

Department of Gynecology, Hungarian National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary.

Alexander Shushkevich (A)

Gynecologic Oncology Department, N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus.

Lenka Fricová (L)

First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

David Cibula (D)

First Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH