Advertisement

Laterally Extended Endopelvic Resection as a Salvage Procedure for Locally Advanced And Recurrent Cervical Cancers: A Single-Institution Experience

  • Subbiah ShanmugamEmail author
  • Gopu Govindasamy
  • Syed Afroze Hussain
  • Arulmurugan Ramalingam
Original Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Locally advanced and recurrent cervical cancer involving up to sidewall where the complete negative margin was not achieved usually had a low cure rate and a poor 2-year survival. Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) described by Hockel et al. is a novel approach in these cases in which complete negative margin (R0) can be achieved with adequate local control and better survival. In this study, we analyzed our 5-year experience and outcome after LEER for locally advanced and recurrent cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent Laterally Extended Endo-pelvic Resection for locally advanced and recurrent carcinoma of cervix during the period from 2012–2017. The following details were recorded from the records: initial stage, histopathology, grade of the tumor, initial treatment modality, methods of urinary and fecal diversion, duration of follow-up, disease-free survival, pattern of recurrence, postoperative histopathology, postoperative morbidity and mortality and survival pattern post-LEER procedure.

Results

Totally, 15 patients were operated; among them, 13 cases were recurrent, progressive or residual disease and two cases were primary (stage IVA) cases. Among 13 cases, an initial stage was IIB in six cases and stage IIIB in seven cases. Among 15 patients, five patients received definitive chemo-radiation; eight out of 15 patients received only external beam radiation without brachytherapy. All but one case was done via laparotomy. All margins were negative in all cases. Early (30 days) postoperative mortality was seen in two patients due to urosepsis. Postoperative complications were perineal wound dehiscence (60%), surgical site infections (33%) and electrolyte abnormalities (33%). After 30 days, recurrent urosepsis and chronic renal failure were seen in 46% of patients. No significant differences between two types of diversion techniques were found. Four patients had recurrence in the pelvis and were started on palliative chemotherapy. Two of these patients died within 2 years. Distant metastasis was seen in three patients and all died within 2 years. Average follow-up was 2.9 years (range 15 months–5 years). Two-year overall survival was 53%. Two-year disease-free survival was 40%.

Conclusion

LEER as a salvage surgery is indicated for primary and recurrent cervical cancer with disease up to pelvic side wall for improving disease-free survival. Though the operating time and blood loss are high in this mega procedure with increased perioperative mortality and morbidity, negative margin (R0) can be achieved with adequate local control and better survival.

Keywords

Carcinoma cervix Laterally extended endopelvic resection 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

Subbiah Shanmugam was involved in concepts and design of the study and edited and reviewed the manuscript. Gopu Govindasamy edited the manuscript. Syed Afroze Hussain analyzed the data and edited the manuscript. Arulmurugan was involved in data acquisition, data analysis and statistical analysis and prepared and edited the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bobdey S, Sathwara J, Jain A, Balasubramaniam G. Burden of cervical cancer and role of screening in India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016;37(4):278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sevin BU, Koechli OR. Pelvic exenteration. Surg Clin North Am. 2001;81(4):771–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gadducci A, Tana R, Cosio S, Cionini L. Treatment options in recurrent cervical cancer (Review). Oncol Lett. 2010;1(1):3–11.  https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shingleton HM, Soong S-J, Gelder MS, et al. Maxwell clinical and histopathologic factors predicting recurrence and survival after pelvic exenteration for cancer of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creasman WT, Rutledge F. Preoperative evaluation of patients with recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1972;1:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutledge FN, Smith JP, Wharton JT, et al. Pelvic exenteration: analysis of 296 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;129:881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Höckel M. Laterally extended endopelvic resection: novel surgical treatment of locally recurrent cervical carcinoma involving the pelvic side wall. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:369–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Höckel M. Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER)—principles and practice. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(2):S13–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Höckel M. Ultra-radical compartmentalized surgery in gynaecological oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(8):859–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Höckel M. Long-term experience with (laterally) extended endopelvic resection (LEER) in relapsed pelvic malignancies. Curr Oncol Rep. 2015;17(3):9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kecmanovic DM. Double-barreled wet colostomy: urinary and fecal diversion. J Urol. 2008;180(1):201–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.059 (discussion 204–5).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yazici S, Tonyali S, Bozaci AC, Haberal HB, Hamaloglu E, Ozen H. Urinary and fecal diversion following pelvic exenteration: comparison of double-barrelled and plain wet colostomy. Urol J. 2018;15(5):290–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Backes FJ, Tierney BJ, Eisenhauer EL, Bahnson RR, Cohn DE, Fowler JM. Complications after double-barreled wet colostomy compared to separate urinary and fecal diversion during pelvic exenteration: time to change back? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):60–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmidt JD, Hawtrey CE, Flocks RH, Culp DA. Complications, results and problems of ileal conduit diversions. J Urol. 1973;109(2):210–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDougal WS. Metabolic complications of urinary intestinal diversion. J Urol. 1992;147(5):1199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang Kunlin, et al. Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for pelvic malignancies: the technique and short-time outcome of 11 cases. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanao H, Aoki Y, Hisa T, Takeshima N. Laparoscopic laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) for cervical carcinoma recurring at the pelvic sidewall after concurrent chemoradiotherapy: our experience in three cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(2):428–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Government Royapettah HospitalKilpauk Medical CollegeChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations