Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer (<2 cm) before conization for fertility preservation: is there any advantage over upfront conization?

被引:5
作者
Noll, Florencia [1 ,2 ]
Palacios Torres, Ana Tatiana [3 ]
Pecci, Pablo [4 ,5 ]
Lucchini, Sergio Martin [2 ]
Heredia, Fernando [6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Italiano Buenos Aires, Dept Gynecol Oncol, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[2] Sanatorio Allende, Sect Gynecol Oncol, Dept Gynecol, Cordoba, Argentina
[3] Hosp San Jose, Fdn Univ Ciencias Salud FUCS, Gynecol Oncol, Bogota, Colombia
[4] Ctr Oncol Puerto Madryn, Gynecol Oncol, Chubut, Argentina
[5] Ctr Diagnost Roca, Gynecol Oncol, Trelew, Argentina
[6] Univ Concepcion, Gynecol & Obstet Dept, Fac Med, Concepcion, Chile
[7] Clin Andes Salud, Minimally Invas & Robot Gynecol Unit, Concepcion, Chile
关键词
cervical cancer; cervix uteri; RADICAL-TRACHELECTOMY; PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; VAGINAL TRACHELECTOMY; SURGERY; OUTCOMES; PACLITAXEL; MANAGEMENT; CISPLATIN; PREGNANCY;
D O I
10.1136/ijgc-2020-001751
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before fertility-sparing surgery is an accepted option for patients with cervical tumors between 2 cm and 4 cm. There is a paucity of data regarding its role in patients with tumors Methods We conducted a systematic literature review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from 1995 to March 2020) using the terms: uterine cervix neoplasms, cervical cancer, fertility-sparing surgery, fertility preservation, conization, cone biopsy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We included manuscripts with information on patients with tumor size <2 cm, lymph node status, follow-up, oncological and obstetrical outcome, and toxicity related to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We excluded review articles or articles with duplicated patient information. Results We identified 12 articles, including 579 patients. For final analysis, 261 patients met inclusion criteria. The most common histology was non-squamous cell carcinoma (62%). Median follow-up time was 63.5 (range 7-122) months for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 48 (range 12-184) months for the upfront cervical conization group. There was no difference in either overall survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy group 100% vs upfront cervical conization 99.7%, p=0.79) or disease-free survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy 100% vs upfront cervical conization 98.9%, p=0.59) between the groups. Fertility preservation rate was 81.4% versus 99.1% (p<0.001) favoring upfront cervical conization. No statistically significant differences were seen in live birth rate or pregnancy loss. Also, we found that all neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients reported chemotherapy-related toxicity (30.7% grade 3 and 69.2% grade 1-2). Conclusions There was no difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conization and upfront cervical conization. Patients who underwent upfront cervical conization had a higher fertility preservation rate.
引用
收藏
页码:379 / 386
页数:8
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature
    Bentivegna, Enrica
    Maulard, Amandine
    Pautier, Patricia
    Chargari, Cyrus
    Gouy, Sebastien
    Morice, Philippe
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2016, 106 (05) : 1195 - +
  • [2] Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review
    Bentivegna, Enrica
    Gouy, Sebastien
    Maulard, Amandine
    Chargari, Cyrus
    Leary, Alexandra
    Morice, Philippe
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (06) : E240 - E253
  • [3] Cancer of the cervix uteri
    Bhatla, Neerja
    Aoki, Daisuke
    Sharma, Daya Nand
    Sankaranarayanan, Rengaswamy
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2018, 143 : 22 - 36
  • [4] Meta-analysis showing that early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts better survival among cervical cancer patients
    Chen, Zhilan
    Shi, Yachen
    Wang, Shixuan
    Lu, Qiping
    [J]. ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (35) : 59609 - 59617
  • [5] Infertility after abdominal trachelectomy
    Egashira, Katsuko
    Hiasa, Kana
    Yokota, Natsuko
    Kawamura, Teruhiko
    Matsushita, Tomoko
    Okugawa, Kaoru
    Yahata, Hideaki
    Sonoda, Kenzo
    Kato, Kiyoko
    [J]. ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2018, 97 (11) : 1358 - 1364
  • [6] Frumovitz M, 2020, LANCET ONCOL, V21, P851, DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30081-4
  • [7] Jemal A, 2011, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V61, P134, DOI [10.3322/caac.21492, 10.3322/caac.20115, 10.3322/caac.20107]
  • [8] Simple conization and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A retrospective analysis and review of the literature
    Li, Xiaoqi
    Xia, Lingfang
    Chen, Xiaojun
    Fu, Yi
    Wu, Xiaohua
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2020, 158 (02) : 231 - 235
  • [9] A phase II, randomized trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy comparing a three-drug combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (TIP) versus paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the Snap-02 Italian Collaborative Study
    Lissoni, A. A.
    Colombo, N.
    Pellegrino, A.
    Parma, G.
    Zola, P.
    Katsaros, D.
    Chiari, S.
    Buda, A.
    Landoni, F.
    Peiretti, M.
    Dell'Anna, T.
    Fruscio, R.
    Signorelli, M.
    Grassi, R.
    Floriani, I.
    Fossati, R.
    Torri, V.
    Rulli, E.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2009, 20 (04) : 660 - 665
  • [10] A systematic review comparing cisplatin and carboplatin plus paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer
    Lorusso, Domenica
    Petrelli, Fausto
    Coinu, Andrea
    Raspagliesi, Francesco
    Barni, Sandro
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2014, 133 (01) : 117 - 123