Chikazawa Kenro, Imai Ken, Ko Hiroyoshi, Kuwata Tomoyuki, Konno Ryo
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama, Japan.
J Gynecol Oncol. 2025 Sep;36(5):e82. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2025.36.e82. Epub 2025 Mar 3.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) between radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and initial chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer at our institution.
In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients diagnosed with stage IB2-IIB cervical cancer according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 staging system, who underwent either radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy or initial concurrent chemoradiation at our institution between 2009 and 2022.
Among these patients, 74 and 110 underwent radical hysterectomy and chemoradiation, respectively. The radical hysterectomy group exhibited significantly improved RFS compared with the chemoradiation group; however, no significant difference was observed in overall survival between the groups. Cox hazard analysis for RFS showed that, among the clinical risk factors identified before the initial treatment, only parametrial invasion was statistically significant. No significant difference in RFS was observed between the radical hysterectomy group and chemoradiation group. Regarding recurrence patterns, para-aortic lymph node recurrence occurred significantly more frequently in the chemoradiation group than in the radical hysterectomy group. Postoperative ureteral injury was reported in once case and postoperative ureteral stenosis in 2 cases in the radical hysterectomy group. In contrast, vesicovaginal fistula and rectovaginal fistula were reported in one case each in the chemoradiation group.
Radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy provided RFS outcomes comparable to those achieved with initial chemoradiotherapy for stage IB2-IIB and IIIC1-2 cervical cancer. These findings suggest that both approaches are viable, although further prospective studies are needed.
本研究旨在评估和比较我院行根治性子宫切除术加辅助化疗与初始放化疗治疗宫颈癌后的无复发生存期(RFS)。
在这项回顾性研究中,我们纳入了根据国际妇产科联盟2018年分期系统诊断为IB2-IIB期宫颈癌的患者,这些患者于2009年至2022年间在我院接受了根治性子宫切除术加盆腔淋巴结清扫术并辅助化疗,或初始同步放化疗。
在这些患者中,分别有74例和110例接受了根治性子宫切除术和放化疗。与放化疗组相比,根治性子宫切除术组的RFS显著改善;然而,两组之间的总生存期无显著差异。RFS的Cox风险分析表明,在初始治疗前确定的临床风险因素中,只有宫旁浸润具有统计学意义。根治性子宫切除术组和放化疗组之间的RFS无显著差异。关于复发模式,放化疗组腹主动脉旁淋巴结复发的发生率显著高于根治性子宫切除术组。根治性子宫切除术组报告1例术后输尿管损伤和2例术后输尿管狭窄。相比之下,放化疗组分别报告1例膀胱阴道瘘和1例直肠阴道瘘。
对于IB2-IIB期和IIIC1-2期宫颈癌,根治性子宫切除术加辅助化疗的RFS结果与初始放化疗相当。这些发现表明,两种方法都是可行的,尽管还需要进一步的前瞻性研究。