Conization and lymph node evaluation in low-risk cervical cancer. Is it time to avoid radical surgery? Retrospective series and literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the oncologic and obstetric outcomes of patients with low-risk cervical cancer who underwent conization and lymphatic evaluation to preserve fertility. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from September 2013 to February 2021. Eligibility criteria included Women with cervical cancer (aged <45 years) who underwent fertility preservation treatment, [stage IA1 with positive lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), stage IA2, or stage IB1 (≤2 cm) with less <10 mm cervical stromal invasion, according to the International Federaltion of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 staging system] aged ≤45 years who wished to preserve their fertility were included in this study. All patients were treated with cervical conization(s) and laparoscopic lymph node evaluation [pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping]. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients met the inclusion criteria; 15 (48.3%) women were nulliparous. There were 8 IA1LVSI+ (25.8%), 11 IA2 (35.4%) and 12 IB1 (31.7%) tumours, according to 2018 FIGO stage classification. Most patients had squamous cell carcinoma (77.4%). Lymphovascular space involvement was found in thirteen patients (41.9%). Reconization was performed in 17 (54.8%) patients, of which 6(35.2%) were done due to compromised margins, 4(23.5%) for margins under than 3 mm, 3(17.6%) for unreported or coagulated margins and 4(23.5%) because previous conization was done in another institution and we could not obtain the paraffin blocks for pathology review. Twenty patients had MRI and eleven CT scan. Nine (30%) patients had a complete bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, 9 (26.6%) had SLN mapping with pelvic lymphadenectomy, and 13 (43.3%) had SLN mapping alone after bilateral SLN identification at surgery. After a median follow-up of 41.4 months (range 2-90 months), no recurrences have been detected. In terms of obstetrial outcome, 11 patients attempted pregnancy and 9 became pregnant. First-trimester miscarriage occurred in one patient. Five patients delivered at term by caesarean section, one of them requiring hysterectomy at the time of delivery. Pathology did not show residual disease. Two patients had a vaginal delivery at 38 weeks. One pregnancy is still ongoing. CONCLUSION: Cervical conization with lymph node assessment by SLN mapping/lymphadenectomy is an oncologic safe procedure in patients with low-risk cervical cancer.

Updates on conservative management of endometrial cancer in patients younger than 45 years.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in developed country. Women under the age of 40 represent 5% of all endometrial cancer and the majority are nulliparous at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this review was to compare oncologic and fertility outcomes among different fertility-preserving therapies in patients under 45 years of age with grade 1 or 2 endometrial cancer. A systematic review was conducted, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched for articles published during the period from January 2010 through January 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using the terms endometrial cancer, fertility sparing treatment and conservative treatment. A total of 661 patients in 38 studies were included. The median age was 32.3 years (range 13--43). Regardless of the primary treatment, it is always accompanied by systemic or local hormonal treatment. The median follow-up time was 47.92 months (range 1-412), 54.9 months (range 3.4-412) for the progesterone group, 38.97 months (range 3-172) for the hysteroscopic resection group and 23.11 months (range 1-115.5) for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device group. The overall complete response rate was 79.4%, [Hysteroscopic Resection: 90%, hormonal treatment: 77.7%, and Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device: 71.3%] The p = 0.02 when the primary treatment is Hysteroscopic resection, always followed by hormonal therapy either oral progesterone or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device. Patients who had tumor resection had lower progression than those who received hormonal treatment or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device 3.5% vs. 12.1% vs. 19.5% respectively (p = 0.03). The complete response time was higher in the Hysteroscopic Resection group (p = 0.04) with fewer patients undergoing hysterectomy (p = 0.0001). Patients who underwent Hysteroscopic Resection had higher pregnancy rates compared to medical treatment or Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device, 34.5%, 27.6% and 18.4%, respectively (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent Hysteroscopic Resection followed progestogens agent was associated to a better complete response, high pregnancy rates and minor numbers of hysterectomies.