The role of pre-treatment paraaortic surgical staging for cervical cancer in the EMBRACE criteria.
EMBRACE
cervical cancer
laparoscopic lymphadenectomy
ovarian transposition
radiotherapy
Journal
Ecancermedicalscience
ISSN: 1754-6605
Titre abrégé: Ecancermedicalscience
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101392236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
30
05
2022
entrez:
23
2
2023
pubmed:
24
2
2023
medline:
24
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The State-of-the-Art Treatment for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC) is Definite Radio-Chemotherapy based on the Image-guided intensity modulated External beam radiochemotherapy and MRI-based adaptive BRAchytherapy (EMBRACE) trial, according to the FIGO staging. This staging is based on clinical examination and imaging studies; however, there are limitations of imaging techniques which may result in adverse events or death due to insufficient or overtreatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of surgical staging in LACC prior to radiotherapy (RT) to personalise target volumes for radiotherapy. From 2008 to 2018, 138 patients with FIGO 2018 stages IB3-IIIC2 cervical cancer underwent a pretherapeutic laparoscopic staging procedure. The pathological diagnosis was compared with the results of preoperative CT scan. Patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy tailored according to the staging results. The mean patient age was 43 years, the mean body mass index was 27 kg/m Laparoscopic staging before primary chemoradiation in patients with LACC was feasible, safe and reproducible, allowing reduction of the radiotherapy treatment volumes of patients.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The State-of-the-Art Treatment for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer (LACC) is Definite Radio-Chemotherapy based on the Image-guided intensity modulated External beam radiochemotherapy and MRI-based adaptive BRAchytherapy (EMBRACE) trial, according to the FIGO staging. This staging is based on clinical examination and imaging studies; however, there are limitations of imaging techniques which may result in adverse events or death due to insufficient or overtreatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of surgical staging in LACC prior to radiotherapy (RT) to personalise target volumes for radiotherapy.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
From 2008 to 2018, 138 patients with FIGO 2018 stages IB3-IIIC2 cervical cancer underwent a pretherapeutic laparoscopic staging procedure. The pathological diagnosis was compared with the results of preoperative CT scan. Patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy tailored according to the staging results.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The mean patient age was 43 years, the mean body mass index was 27 kg/m
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Laparoscopic staging before primary chemoradiation in patients with LACC was feasible, safe and reproducible, allowing reduction of the radiotherapy treatment volumes of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36819821
doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2022.1463
pii: can-16-1463
pmc: PMC9934876
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
1463Informations de copyright
© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have nothing to disclose in relation to this manuscript.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 1980 Feb;9(1):90-8
pubmed: 7353805
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Sep 14;13(1):177
pubmed: 30217165
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Apr;73(1):106-10
pubmed: 10094889
Gynecol Oncol. 1998 Oct;71(1):19-28
pubmed: 9784314
Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1954-63
pubmed: 18338811
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Nov;195(5):1287-92
pubmed: 16677594
J Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(3):171-8
pubmed: 25925292
Med Sci Monit. 2020 Aug 27;26:e926544
pubmed: 32848125
Gynecol Oncol. 1986 Jun;24(2):194-206
pubmed: 3086190
J Transl Med. 2018 Nov 26;16(1):326
pubmed: 30477530
Br J Cancer. 2015 Aug 11;113(4):595-602
pubmed: 26225551
J Nucl Med. 2004 Sep;45(9):1509-18
pubmed: 15347718
J Glob Oncol. 2016 May 25;2(5):311-340
pubmed: 28717717
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Jun;18(6):660-666
pubmed: 32502976
Cancer. 1991 Jun 1;67(11):2776-85
pubmed: 2025841
Gynecol Oncol. 1994 Oct;55(1):25-8
pubmed: 7959261
Front Oncol. 2015 Jan 22;4:380
pubmed: 25657930
Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Oct;67(1):83-7
pubmed: 9345361
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Nov;159(2):588-596
pubmed: 32921477
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Mar 1;139(5):575-8
pubmed: 7468722
Cancer. 2011 May 1;117(9):1928-34
pubmed: 21509770
JAMA. 1995 Aug 2;274(5):387-93
pubmed: 7616634
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Dec;30(12):1855-1861
pubmed: 33293284
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):536-44
pubmed: 16126259
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Sep;18(3):215-32
pubmed: 1157361
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002 Jan-Feb;12(1):22-6
pubmed: 11860532
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Sep;142(3):413-9
pubmed: 27178725
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Jan;26(1):169-75
pubmed: 26569062
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Apr;178(4):806-10
pubmed: 9579449
Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Oct;87(1):46-51
pubmed: 12468341
Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Jun;73(3):383-8
pubmed: 10366464
Radiother Oncol. 1988 Feb;11(2):101-12
pubmed: 3281186
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):299-303
pubmed: 26007204
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;16(1):11-8
pubmed: 15128002
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;9:48-60
pubmed: 29594251
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;145(1):129-135
pubmed: 30656645