Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer (<2 cm) before conization for fertility preservation: is there any advantage over upfront conization?

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.

Comparación de los resultados oncológicos entre cirugía radical por laparotomía versus la de mínima invasión en cáncer temprano de cérvix / Comparison of oncologic outcomes between radical laparotomy surgery versus minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer

Introducción: la histerectomía radical con linfadenectomía pélvica es el tratamiento estándar para las pacientes con cáncer de cérvix en estadios tempranos que no desean preservar la fertilidad. Objetivos: comparar tasas de supervivencia global, periodo libre de enfermedad y recurrencia entre histerectomía radical por mínima invasión (CMI) versus cirugía abierta. Además analizar las características histopatológicas, complicaciones intraoperatorias, posoperatorias tempranas y tardías entre ambas técnicas. Metodología: estudio observacional de cohorte retrospectivo entre 2011 y 2017. Se incluyeron mayores de 18 años con diagnóstico de carcinoma de cuello uterino en estadios IA1 (invasión del espacio linfovascular) a IB1 (FIGO 2009) con seguimiento hasta diciembre 2020. Se hizo análisis bivariado utilizando chi cuadrado, prueba exacta de Fisher o U Mann Whitney para determinar las diferencias entre las técnicas quirúrgicas frente a características sociodemográficas, clínicas, complicaciones intraoperatorias, tempranas y tardías. Se calcularon tasas de supervivencia global y densidades de recurrencia con el tiempo aportado por las pacientes. Resultados: de 113 pacientes llevadas a histerectomía radical, 75 se excluyeron del análisis. La supervivencia global fue 100% para las del grupo de laparotomía versus 97.6% en CMI. La tasa de recurrencia global fue de 8 casos y la del grupo de CMI 14.1 por 1.000 personas/año de observación. El grupo de laparotomía no presentó recaídas. Hubo diferencia significativa en la mediana de sangrado intraoperatorio (600 cc laparotomía versus 100 cc laparoscopia, p= 0.002); 11.4% requirieron transfusión intraoperatoria (25% laparotomía versus 2.4% mínima invasión, p=0,006). Conclusiones: las pacientes llevadas a cirugía por laparoscopia tuvieron una mayor proporción de recurrencia y mortalidad en comparación con el abordaje por técnica abierta.

Introduction: radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer patients who do not wish to preserve fertility. Objetives: this study compares overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence rates of patients undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIS) versus open surgery. Likewise, the histopathological characteristics, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative complications, are analyzed for both techniques, Methodology: an observational retrospective cohort study between 2011 and 2017. Patients over 18 years of age diagnosed with cervical carcinoma in stages IA1 (lymph vascular space invasion) and IB1 (FIGO 2009) receiving follow-up care until December 2020, were included. The Chi-square test, Fisher ́s exact test or Mann Whitney U test were used for bivariate analysis, to determine the differences between the techniques with regards to sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and intraoperative early and late complications. Overall survival rates and recurrence densities were calculated with data provided by the patients. Results: of the 113 patients undergoing radical hysterectomy, 75 were excluded from the analysis. Overall survival was 100% in the laparotomy group versus 97.6% in the MIS group. The overall recurrence rate was of 8 cases, 14.1 per 1.000 person-years of observation in the MIS group. Patients in the laparotomy group developed no recurrences. There was a significant difference in median intraoperative blood loss (600 cc in laparotomy versus 100 cc in laparoscopy, p= 0.002); 11.4% of patients required intraoperative transfusion (25% in the laparotomy group versus 2.4% in the MIS group, p=0.006). Conclusions: patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had a higher recurrence and mortality rate than that of open approach