Assessment of primary radical hysterectomy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy in Stage IB2, IIA bulky cervical cancer


MUSAEV A., Gazel A. B. , KHATİB G. , Gulec U. K. , VARDAR M. A. , ALTMTAS A., et al.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GYNAECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY, cilt.36, ss.579-584, 2015 (SCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi) identifier identifier identifier

  • Cilt numarası: 36 Konu: 5
  • Basım Tarihi: 2015
  • Doi Numarası: 10.12892/ejgo2629.2015
  • Dergi Adı: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GYNAECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY
  • Sayfa Sayısı: ss.579-584

Özet

Objective: Uncertainty concerning the treatment of Stage IB2-IIA (bulky) cervical cancer is still continuing. In this study, an analysis of Stage IB2-IIA (bulky) cervical cancer was performed. The efficacy of primary radical surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a radical surgery was investigated. Materials and Methods: Medical data of 50 patients who were diagnosed with Stage IB2-IIA (bulky) cervical cancer and treated between 2002-2009 were retrospectively assessed. In the radical surgery group, radical hysterectomy + bilateral pelvic + para-aortic lymphadenectomy were performed. In the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, a combination of cisplatin/topotecan or paclitaxel/carboplatin was given to the patients and then radical surgery was performed. Each group was evaluated individually. Prognostic factors were determined and survival rates were compared between the groups. Ap value was taken <0.05 for the statistical significance level for all results. Results: Radical surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed in 21 and primary radical surgery in 29 patients. Median follow-up time was 36.0 +/- 14.0 months. Average of the tumor size before treatment was 50.2 +/- 7.6 mm. In the radical surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and tumor size (before and after treatment) were determined to be significant factors for each of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). On multivariate analysis, tumor size (before treatment) was found to be an independent prognostic factor for both of DFS (p = 0.006) and OS (p = 0.010). No significant difference in survival periods was observed among the groups. Conclusion: There was no significant superiority among the two treatment options. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to compare the multimodal approaches in these stages of cervical cancer.