Outcomes of abandoned radical hysterectomy in patients with stages IB-IIA cervical cancer found to have positive nodes during the operation

被引:23
作者
Suprasert, P [1 ]
Srisomboon, J
Charoenkwan, K
Siriaungul, S
Khunamornpong, S
Siriaree, S
Phongnarisorn, C
Lorvidhaya, V
机构
[1] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
[2] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Dept Pathol, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
[3] Chiang Mai Univ, Fac Med, Div Therapeut Radiol & Oncol, Dept Radiol, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
关键词
cervical cancer; positive nodes; radical hysterectomy;
D O I
10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15315.x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of stages IB-IIA cervical cancer patients whose radical hysterectomy (RH) was abandoned for positive pelvic nodes detected during the operation compared with those found to have positive nodes after the operation. Among 242 patients with planned RH and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHPL) for stages IB-IIA cervical cancer, 23 (9.5%) had grossly positive nodes. RH was abandoned, and complete pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed. Of these 23 patients, 22 received adjuvant chemoradiation, and the remaining 1 received adjuvant radiation. Four patients with positive para-aortic nodes were additionally treated with extended-field irradiation. When compared with 35 patients whose positive nodes were detected after the operation, there were significant differences regarding number of positive nodes and number of patients receiving extended-field irradiation. Complications in both groups were not significantly different, but the 2-year disease-free survival was significantly lower in the abandoned RH group compared with that of the RHPL group (58.5% versus 93.5%, P= 0.01). In conclusion, the survival of stages IB-IIA cervical cancer patients whose RH was abandoned for grossly positive pelvic nodes was significantly worse than that of patients whose node metastasis was identified after the operation. This is because the abandoned RH group had worse prognostic factors.
引用
收藏
页码:498 / 502
页数:5
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION AFTER THERAPY FOR CERVICAL CARCINOMA
    ABITBOL, MM
    DAVENPORT, JH
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1974, 119 (02) : 181 - 189
  • [2] IDENTIFICATION OF PROGNOSTIC FACTORS AND RISK GROUPS IN PATIENTS FOUND TO HAVE NODAL METASTASIS AT THE TIME OF RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY FOR EARLY-STAGE SQUAMOUS CARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX
    ALVAREZ, RD
    SOONG, SJ
    KINNEY, WK
    REID, GC
    SCHRAY, MF
    PODRATZ, KC
    MORLEY, GW
    SHINGLETON, HM
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1989, 35 (02) : 130 - 135
  • [3] Bortolozzi G, 1983, Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, V4, P9
  • [4] EARLY STAGE CERVICAL-CANCER - ABORTED VERSUS COMPLETED RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY
    BREMER, GL
    VANDERPUTTEN, HWHM
    DUNSELMAN, GAJ
    DEHAAN, J
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 1992, 47 (02): : 147 - 151
  • [5] A GLOSSARY FOR REPORTING COMPLICATIONS OF TREATMENT IN GYNECOLOGICAL CANCERS
    CHASSAGNE, D
    SISMONDI, P
    HORIOT, JC
    SINISTRERO, G
    BEY, P
    ZOLA, P
    PERNOT, M
    GERBAULET, A
    KUNKLER, I
    MICHEL, G
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1993, 26 (03) : 195 - 202
  • [6] Cosin JA, 1998, CANCER, V82, P2241, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980601)82:11<2241::AID-CNCR20>3.0.CO
  • [7] 2-T
  • [8] MORBIDITY AND SURVIVAL PATTERNS IN PATIENTS AFTER RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY AND POSTOPERATIVE ADJUVANT PELVIC RADIOTHERAPY
    FIORICA, JV
    ROBERTS, WS
    GREENBERG, H
    HOFFMAN, MS
    LAPOLLA, JP
    CAVANAGH, D
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1990, 36 (03) : 343 - 347
  • [9] LYMPH-NODE METASTASES FROM CARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX, STAGES IB AND IIA - IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGNOSIS AND TREATMENT
    FULLER, AF
    ELLIOTT, N
    KOSLOFF, C
    LEWIS, JL
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1982, 13 (02) : 165 - 174
  • [10] RESECTION OF BULKY POSITIVE LYMPH-NODES IN PATIENTS WITH CERVICAL-CARCINOMA
    HACKER, NF
    WAIN, GV
    NICKLIN, JL
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 1995, 5 (04) : 250 - 256