International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer (<2 cm) before conization for fertility preservation: is there any advantage over upfront conization?
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Noll Florencia, Palacios Torres Ana Tatiana, Pecci Pablo, Lucchini Sergio Martin, Heredia Fernando
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before fertility-sparing surgery is an accepted option for patients with cervical tumors between 2 cm and 4 cm. There is a paucity of data regarding its role in patients with tumors <2 cm. Our objective was to compare the oncological and obstetrical outcomes between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before cervical conization versus upfront cervical conization in patients with cervical cancer with tumors <2 cm.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from 1995 to March 2020) using the terms: uterine cervix neoplasms, cervical cancer, fertility-sparing surgery, fertility preservation, conization, cone biopsy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We included manuscripts with information on patients with tumor size <2 cm, lymph node status, follow-up, oncological and obstetrical outcome, and toxicity related to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We excluded review articles or articles with duplicated patient information.
RESULTS: We identified 12 articles, including 579 patients. For final analysis, 261 patients met inclusion criteria. The most common histology was non-squamous cell carcinoma (62%). Median follow-up time was 63.5 (range 7-122) months for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 48 (range 12-184) months for the upfront cervical conization group. There was no difference in either overall survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy group 100% vs upfront cervical conization 99.7%, p=0.79) or disease-free survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy 100% vs upfront cervical conization 98.9%, p=0.59) between the groups. Fertility preservation rate was 81.4% versus 99.1% (p<0.001) favoring upfront cervical conization. No statistically significant differences were seen in live birth rate or pregnancy loss. Also, we found that all neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients reported chemotherapy-related toxicity (30.7% grade 3 and 69.2% grade 1-2).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conization and upfront cervical conization. Patients who underwent upfront cervical conization had a higher fertility preservation rate.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from 1995 to March 2020) using the terms: uterine cervix neoplasms, cervical cancer, fertility-sparing surgery, fertility preservation, conization, cone biopsy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We included manuscripts with information on patients with tumor size <2 cm, lymph node status, follow-up, oncological and obstetrical outcome, and toxicity related to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We excluded review articles or articles with duplicated patient information.
RESULTS: We identified 12 articles, including 579 patients. For final analysis, 261 patients met inclusion criteria. The most common histology was non-squamous cell carcinoma (62%). Median follow-up time was 63.5 (range 7-122) months for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 48 (range 12-184) months for the upfront cervical conization group. There was no difference in either overall survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy group 100% vs upfront cervical conization 99.7%, p=0.79) or disease-free survival (neoadjuvant chemotherapy 100% vs upfront cervical conization 98.9%, p=0.59) between the groups. Fertility preservation rate was 81.4% versus 99.1% (p<0.001) favoring upfront cervical conization. No statistically significant differences were seen in live birth rate or pregnancy loss. Also, we found that all neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients reported chemotherapy-related toxicity (30.7% grade 3 and 69.2% grade 1-2).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conization and upfront cervical conization. Patients who underwent upfront cervical conization had a higher fertility preservation rate.