Cargando…

Association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who underwent LRH for cervical cancer with squamous, adenosquamous and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ding, Yan, Zhang, Xuyin, Qiu, Junjun, Li, Chunbo, Hua, Keqin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36329212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06816-6
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate association of preoperative conization with recurrences after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for FIGO 2018 stage IB1 cervical cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients who underwent LRH for cervical cancer with squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype from January 2014 to December 2018 were reviewed. All patients were restaged according to the 2018 FIGO staging system. Those who were in FIGO 2018 stage IB1 met the inclusion criteria. General characteristics and oncologic outcomes including recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1273 patients were included in the analysis. 616 (48.4%) patients underwent preoperative biopsy, and 657 (51.6%) patients underwent conization. Residual disease was observed in 822 (64.6%) patients. During a median follow-up of 50.30 months, 30 (2.4%) patients experienced recurrence. The univariate analysis showed that patients who had larger tumor diameter, the presence of residual tumor at final pathology, and underwent adjuvant treatment had a significant higher risk of recurrence (P < 0.01). Conversely, patients who underwent conization were significantly less likely to experience recurrence (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the independent risk factor associated with an increased risk of recurrence was resident macroscopic tumor (HR: 38.4, 95% CI 4.20–351.64, P = 0.001). On the contrary, preoperative conization was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrence (HR: 0.26; 95% CI 0.10–0.63, P = 0.003). The Kaplan–Meier curves showed patients who underwent conization had improved survival over those who underwent biopsy (5 year RFS: 98.6 vs 95.1%, P = 0.001). The 5 year RFS of patients with residual tumor was significantly different (R0: 99.2%, R1: 97.4%, R2: 93.6%, P < 0.001), especially the patients with residual macroscopic tumor after conization (R0: 99.5%, R1: 99.0%, R2:92.4%, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Preoperative conization and the absence of residual tumor at the time of surgery might play a protective role in patients with FIGO 2018 IB1 cervical cancer following LRH, which support the theory of the influence of intraoperative tumor spread during radical hysterectomy. Further prospective evidence is needed.