Can simple trachelectomy or conization show comparable survival rate compared with radical trachelectomy in IA1 cervical cancer patients with lymphovascular space invasion who wish to save fertility? A systematic review and guideline recommendation

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the published literatures on the effect of less radical fertility-preserving procedures, such as conization or simple trachelectomy, on oncological outcomes in IA1 cervical cancer patients with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) through a systematic-review. METHODS: The EMBASE and MEDLINE databases and Cochrane Library were searched for published studies reporting the oncological outcomes of conization/simple trachelectomy in these patients, through April 2017. The endpoints were recurrence and mortality rates. Data were presented as per the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Practice guidelines were generated via the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: From 6,755 records, 94 full-texts articles were reviewed for eligibility, and five studies were included in this systematic review. All included studies were nonrandomized studies: two case-control studies comparing conization (n = 14) with hysterectomy (n = 24), and the other three were interrupted time series including conization (n = 20) and simple vaginal trachelectomy (n = 59). During the median follow-up duration of 43 months, no recurrence was reported in both conization and simple trachelectomy groups in IA1 patients with LVSI. From three studies reporting the fertility outcomes, the rates of pregnancy, live birth, preterm delivery, and second-trimester miscarriage were 73% (35/48), 64% (32/50), 10% (5/48), and 6% (3/48), respectively. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that simple trachelectomy or conization could be performed for IA1 cervical cancer patients with LVSI who want to preserve fertility, although these results are only based on a small number of nonrandomized studies (recommendation grade 2 = weak; evidence level D = very low). Further randomized trials with long-term study period are needed to address this issue.