Bulletin du cancer · 2025
Impact of preoperative conization on treatment outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing abdominal radical hysterectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vujić Goran, Planinić Pavao, Babić Ivan, Škvorc Marko, Erceg Marijan, Potkonjak Ana-Meyra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The optimal surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer has been reevaluated in the light of the LACC trial, revealing poorer outcomes with minimally invasive surgery due to inevitable tumor spillage. Preoperative conization contributed to longer disease-free survival, improved overall survival, and reduced recurrence rates in patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (RH). This research evaluated the impact of preoperative conization on recurrence and survival in cervical cancer patients undergoing abdominal RH.
METHODS: A study retrospectively analyzed 274 patients with cervical cancer who underwent abdominal RH. Treatment outcomes were compared based on whether preoperative conization was performed.
RESULTS: While no difference in recurrence was evident, a slight, albeit nonsignificant difference in mortality rates indicated that conization neither improves nor worsens survival. In cases with equal depth of invasion, conization did not affect survival.
CONCLUSION: In comparison to other studies, this research offers insights into conization's role in the treatment of a wider range of tumor stages, affirming its diagnostic significance without adverse effects on survival, particularly in cases of equal invasion depth during abdominal RH.
METHODS: A study retrospectively analyzed 274 patients with cervical cancer who underwent abdominal RH. Treatment outcomes were compared based on whether preoperative conization was performed.
RESULTS: While no difference in recurrence was evident, a slight, albeit nonsignificant difference in mortality rates indicated that conization neither improves nor worsens survival. In cases with equal depth of invasion, conization did not affect survival.
CONCLUSION: In comparison to other studies, this research offers insights into conization's role in the treatment of a wider range of tumor stages, affirming its diagnostic significance without adverse effects on survival, particularly in cases of equal invasion depth during abdominal RH.