Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Department of Gynecology, Section of Gynecologic Oncology, Sanatorio Allende, Cordoba, Argentina.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Mar;31(3):379-386. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001751.
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 <2 cm. Our objective was to compare the oncological and obstetrical outcomes between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before cervical conization versus upfront cervical conization in patients with cervical cancer with tumors <2 cm.
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.
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).
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.
对于肿瘤直径在 2 厘米至 4 厘米之间的宫颈癌患者,在进行保留生育功能的手术前进行新辅助化疗是一种公认的选择。但是,对于肿瘤直径<2 厘米的患者,新辅助化疗的作用的数据较少。我们的目的是比较新辅助化疗后行宫颈锥切术与直接行宫颈锥切术治疗肿瘤直径<2 厘米的宫颈癌患者的肿瘤学和产科结局。
我们进行了系统的文献回顾,并使用了以下术语在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 中进行了搜索(从 1995 年至 2020 年 3 月):子宫颈肿瘤、宫颈癌、保留生育功能的手术、生育力保存、锥切术、宫颈锥切术和新辅助化疗。我们纳入了提供肿瘤大小<2 厘米、淋巴结状态、随访、肿瘤学和产科结局以及与新辅助化疗相关的毒性信息的文献。我们排除了综述文章或包含重复患者信息的文章。
我们共确定了 12 篇文章,其中包括 579 名患者。对于最终分析,有 261 名患者符合纳入标准。最常见的组织学类型是非鳞状细胞癌(62%)。新辅助化疗组的中位随访时间为 63.5 个月(范围 7-122 个月),直接行宫颈锥切术组为 48 个月(范围 12-184 个月)。两组患者的总生存率(新辅助化疗组 100%与直接行宫颈锥切术组 99.7%,p=0.79)或无疾病生存率(新辅助化疗组 100%与直接行宫颈锥切术组 98.9%,p=0.59)均无差异。生育力保存率分别为 81.4%和 99.1%(p<0.001),直接行宫颈锥切术更有优势。活产率和妊娠丢失率也没有统计学差异。此外,我们发现所有新辅助化疗患者均报告了化疗相关毒性(30.7%为 3 级,69.2%为 1-2 级)。
行新辅助化疗后行锥切术与直接行宫颈锥切术的患者之间无疾病无进展生存率或总生存率差异无统计学意义。直接行宫颈锥切术的患者生育力保存率更高。