Obstetrical prognosis of patients who underwent vaginal radical trachelectomy during pregnancy.

AIM: Radical trachelectomy (RT) with pelvic lymphadenectomy has become an option for young patients with early invasive uterine cervical cancer who decide to maintain their fertility. However, this operative method entails a high risk for the following pregnancy due to its radicality. Therefore, RT for pregnant patients can be a challenge both for gynecologic oncologists and obstetricians. METHODS: We have performed vaginal RT for five pregnant patients with uterine cervical cancer stage 1B1 according to the method of Dargent et al. The operations were performed between 16 and 26 weeks of pregnancy, and the patients were followed up carefully according to the follow-up methods we reported previously. RESULTS: Vaginal RT was performed for five patients without any troubles. Four of the patients continued their pregnancies until almost 34 weeks or longer under our previously published follow-up schedule. The pregnancy of one patient was terminated at 26 weeks due to recurrence of the cancer. CONCLUSION: Expansion of vaginal RT for pregnant patients with uterine cervical cancer could be a practical option for pregnant patients with early invasive uterine cervical cancer.

Virological and cytological clearance in laser vaporization and conization for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 3.

AIM: Cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) is the precancerous stage of cervical cancer. Standard treatment for high-grade CIN is conization of the cervix. The risk of preterm birth following conization has been discussed recently. In contrast, laser vaporization is believed not to affect perinatal outcome, but the long-term effectiveness of each surgical procedure is still unclear. The aim of this prospective unmatched-cohort study was therefore to compare virological and cytological clearance and recurrence risk between conization and vaporization for CIN3. METHODS: Subject consisted of CIN3 patients treated at the present hospital between 2007 to 2011 and followed up until December 2014. One hundred and one patients were treated with laser conization, and 137 with vaporization. The surgical procedure was selected on the basis of colposcopy, pathological grade and patient's hope for pregnancy. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in cure rate, human papilloma virus (HPV) clearance rate or recurrence rates between the conization and vaporization groups. Risk ratio of recurrence for each surgical procedure adjusted for age and HPV persistence status were analyzed on Cox proportional hazards modeling. Recurrence risk ratio for patients treated by vaporization was 6.21 (95%CI: 0.65-59.19; P = 0.111) compared with conization and there were no significant differences. No adverse pregnancy outcome was observed in the vaporization group compared with conization. CONCLUSIONS: Laser vaporization is useful for young patients with CIN3 who hope for pregnancy in the future.