Surgery for Cervical Cancer: Perspectives from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

  • Greta DreyerEmail author
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Controversies to Consensus : Recent advances



This review and opinion provides a very brief overview of current thinking about surgery for cervical cancer. The aim is to add the perspectives of gynaecologic oncologists working in low- and middle-income countries and consider where these may differ from the oft-quoted perspectives of professionals in high-income settings.


This article firstly explores aspects of cervical cancer and its treatment that differ between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries. Secondly, newer developments in the surgical management of primary and recurrent cervical cancers are considered. Lastly, it is discussed where and why perspectives from LMIC may be different from the ‘global standard’.


The reader will be challenged to rethink the applicability of widely published current opinions to all areas in the world. It is acknowledged that LMIC represents a large spectrum over multiple continents and that considerations will not apply to all settings. Some developments may be detrimental to countries without disease control, while other concepts offer hope and innovation.


Different conditions in LMIC and the solutions found by health professionals working there, must be noted by the wide fraternity as a contribution to science. Adherence to global guidelines should not be expected.


Cervical cancer Radical hysterectomy Low-resource setting Adjuvant Radiation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Considerations



  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–86.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denny L. Prevention of cervical cancer. Reprod Health Matters. 2008;16(32):18–31. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Randall TC, Ghebre R. Challenges in prevention and care delivery for women with cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa. Front Oncol. 2016;6:160. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatla N, Berek JS, Fredes MC, et al. FIGO committee report. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145:129–35. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3745–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soutter WP, Hanoch J, D’Arcy T, et al. Pretreatment tumour volume measurement on high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of survival in cervical cancer. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111:741–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Candelaria M, Cetina L, Garcia-Arias A, Lopez-Graniel C, De la Garza J, et al. Radiation-sparing managements for cervical cancer: a developing countries perspective. World J Surg Oncol. 2006;4:77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grover S, Xu MJ, Yeager A, et al. A systematic review of radiotherapy capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Front Oncol. 2014;4:380. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Datta NR, Samiei M, Bodis S. Radiation therapy infrastructure and human resources in low- and middle-income countries: present status and projections for 2020. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:448–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tatsuzaki H, Levin CV. Quantitative status of resources for radiation therapy in Asia and Pacific region. Radiother Oncol. 2001;60:81–9. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386:569–624. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grigsby PW, Herzog TJ. Current management of patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;44:531–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sato S, Itamochi H, Sugiyama T. Fertility-sparing surgery for uterine cervical cancer. Future Oncol. 2016;12:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suprasert P, Srisomboon J, Kasamatsu T. Radical hysterectomy for stage IIB cervical cancer: a review. Int J Gynecol Oncol. 2005;15:995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, et al. Comparison of outcomes between radical hysterectomy followed by tailored adjuvant therapy versus primary chemoradiation therapy in IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2012;23(4):226–34. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nama V, Angelopoulos G, Twigg J, Murdoch JB, Bailey J, Lawrie TA. Type II or Type III radical hysterectomy compared to chemotherapy as a primary intervention for stage IB2 cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melamed A, Diver EJ, Gockley AA, Hinchcliff EM, Contrino L, Feldman S, Growdon WB. Adjuvant hysterectomy for cervical cancer: indications, complications, and outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141(S1):143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lorvidhaya V, Chitapanarux I, Sangruchi S, et al. Concurrent mitomycin C, 5-fluorouracil, and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix: a randomized trial. Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:1226–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Apolitano U, Imperato F, Mossa B, et al. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for squamous cell cervical cancer (Ib–IIIb): a long-term randomized trial. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003;24:51–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tattersall MHN, Raminez C, Coppleson M. A randomized trial comparing platinum-based chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1992;2:244–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sardi JE, Giaroli A, Sananes C, et al. Long term follow-up of the first randomized trial using neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage Ib squamous carcinoma of the cervix: the final results. Gynecol Oncol. 1997;67:61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benedetti-Panici P, Greggi S, Colombo A, et al. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery versus exclusive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the cervix: results from the Italian multicentre study. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao H, He Y, Yang S-L, Zhao Q, Wu Y-M. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radical surgery vs radical surgery alone for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2019;12:1881–91. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris R, Baker VV. Is less more? Rethinking the extent of surgery for invasive cervical cancer. Curr Women’s Health Rep. 2002;2:15–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piver MS, Rutledge FN, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Benedetti-Panici P. New classification system of radical hysterectomy: emphasis on the three dimensional anatomic template for parametrial dissection. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22(2):264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zullo MA, Manci N, Angioli R, et al. Vesical dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a critical review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48:287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoffman MS. Extent of radical hysterectomy: evolving emphasis. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Höckel M, Horn LC, Manthey N, et al. Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Mullerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:683–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Malzoni M, Malzoni C, Perone C, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur J Gynecol Oncol. 2004;25:525–7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee CL, Huang KG, Jain S, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and conventional surgery in the treatment of early cervical cancer. Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002;9:481–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steed H, Rosen B, Murphy J, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:588–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–904. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Virchows Arch. 2018;472:919. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hacker NF. Clinical and operative staging of cervical cancer. Bailliere’s Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;2:747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martinez-Palones JM, Gil-Moreno A, Perez-Benavente MA, et al. Intraoperative sentinel node identification in early stage cervical cancer using a combination of radiolabeled albumin injection and isosulfan blue dye injection. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;9293:845–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maas CP, Trimbos JB, de Ruiter MC, et al. Nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: latest developments and historical perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003;48:271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen GD, Lin LY, Wang PH, et al. Urinary tract dysfunction after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:292–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kietpeerakool C, Aue-aungkul A, Galaal K, Ngamjarus C, Lumbiganon P. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Cochrane Library Accessed 12 July 2019.
  40. 40.
    Yessaian A, Magistris A, Burger RA, et al. Radical hysterectomy followed by tailored postoperative therapy in the treatment of stage lB2 cervical cancer: feasibility and indications for adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rothman MZ, et al. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage lB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1606–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tabata T, Nishiura K, Yanoh K, et al. A pilot study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mitomycin C, etoposide, cisplatin, and epirubicin for adenocarcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2004;9:59–63.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koh W, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical Cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(1):64–84. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reade CJ, Eiriksson LR, Covens A. Surgery for early stage cervical cancer: how radical should it be? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(1):222–30. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thomas GM. Improved treatment for cervical cancer—concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1198–200. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Steve Biko Academic HospitalPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations