Current Oncology Reports

, 19:51 | Cite as

Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery

  • Tiffany Zigras
  • Genevieve Lennox
  • Karla Willows
  • Allan CovensEmail author
Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers


Purpose of Review

Advances in cervical cancer screening and treatment have resulted in high cure rates in developed countries for early-stage disease. Current research focuses on minimizing morbidity and maximizing quality of life.

Recent Findings

Imaging has been disappointing in identifying small volume metastases. Sentinel lymph node biopsy represents a significant advantage with high sensitivity, low false negative rates, reduced morbidity, and equivalent survival in recent studies compared to pelvic lymphadenectomy. Non-radical surgical options are currently being investigated for early cervical cancer in a number of large prospective studies in patients at low risk for metastases.


Evidence suggests that sentinel lymph node biopsy and non-radical surgery are safe approaches for the staging and management of early cervical cancer in appropriately selected patients with the potential to significantly reduce treatment-related morbidity.


Early cervical cancer Uterine cervical neoplasm Cervical cancer staging Sentinel lymph nodes Pelvic lymphadenectomy Fertility-sparing surgery 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Tiffany Zigras, Genevieve Lennox, Karla Willows, and Allan Covens declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. Available from. Accessed 2016/9/4.
  2. 2.
    Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):107–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Creasman WT, et al. Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;(95 Suppl 1):S43–103. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(06)60030-1.
  4. 4.
    Bermudez A, Bhatla N, Leung E. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl 2):S88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Ford JH, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer: experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 1980;9(1):90–8. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(80)90013-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Subak LL, Hricak H, Powell CB, Azizi L, Stern JL. Cervical carcinoma: computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(1):43–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amendola MA, Hricak H, Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Chi DS, Long HJ 3rd, et al. Utilization of diagnostic studies in the pretreatment evaluation of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: results of intergroup protocol ACRIN 6651/GOG 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7454–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourgioti C, Chatoupis K, Moulopoulos LA. Current imaging strategies for the evaluation of uterine cervical cancer. World J Radiol. 2016;8(4):342–54. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i4.342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhosale PR, Iyer RB, Ramalingam P, Schmeler KM, Wei W, Bassett RL, et al. Is MRI helpful in assessing the distance of the tumour from the internal os in patients with cervical cancer below FIGO stage IB2? Clin Radiol. 2016;71(6):515–22. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.02.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley FV, Snyder B, Reinhold C, Schwartz LH, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation—ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology. 2007;245(2):491–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2452061983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell DG, Snyder B, Coakley F, Reinhold C, Thomas G, Amendola M, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and clinical examination, verified by pathologic results, in the ACRIN 6651/GOG 183 Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):5687–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization. Baseline country survey on medical devices 2010. Geneva: WHO Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen G, Zhou H, Jia Z, Deng H. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1052):20150063. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, Bergman A, Brkljacic B, Danza F, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(5):1102–10. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1998-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee JY, Kwon JS, Cohn DE, Kim Y, Smith B, Lee TJ, et al. Treatment strategies for stage IB cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from Korean, Canadian and U.S. perspectives. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140(1):83–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, Amendola MA, Brandt K, Schwartz LH, et al. Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6651-Gynecologic Oncology Group 183. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9329–37. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.0354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choi HJ, Roh JW, Seo SS, Lee S, Kim JY, Kim SK, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer. 2006;106(4):914–22. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lv K, Guo HM, Lu YJ, Wu ZX, Zhang K, Han JK. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting pelvic lymph-node metastases in patients with early-stage uterine cervical cancer: comparison with MRI findings. Nucl med Commun. 2014;35(12):1204–11. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(1):56–65. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2902-8. PET/MRI has potential to add diagnostic confidence to metastatics pelvic lymph node assessment with reduced radiation to patients.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M, Perego P, Moreni R, Pellegrino A, et al. Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical early-stage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology. 2006;238(1):272–9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381041799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, Zikan M, Zaal A, Sevcik L, et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(3):496–501. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fraum TJ, Fowler KJ, McConathy J. PET/MRI: emerging clinical applications in oncology. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(2):220–36. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.09.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kodama J, Kusumoto T, Nakamura K, Seki N, Hongo A, Hiramatsu Y. Factors associated with parametrial involvement in stage IB1 cervical cancer and identification of patients suitable for less radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(3):491–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, Burke WM, Lu YS, Lewin SN, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steed H, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, De Petrillo D, Covens A. A comparison of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93(3):588–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.04.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taylor SE, McBee WC Jr, Richard SD, Edwards RP. Radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. JSLS. 2011;15(2):213–7. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13022985132218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hong JH, Choi JS, Lee JH, Son CE, Jeon SW, Bae JW, et al. Comparison of survival and adverse events between women with stage IB1 and stage IB2 cervical cancer treated by laparoscopic radical vaginal hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):605–11. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1904-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(6):1201–9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256ccc5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van de Lande J, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Lettinga RG, Piek JM, Verheijen RH. Open versus laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in early stage cervical cancer: no difference in surgical or disease outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(1):107–14. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e31822c273d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(1):176–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naik R, Jackson KS, Lopes A, Cross P, Henry JA. Laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised phase II trial: perioperative outcomes and surgicopathological measurements. BJOG. 2010;117(6):746–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02479.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Campos LS, Limberger LF, Stein AT, Kalil AN. Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:293. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-293. Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy have less pain compared to those undergoing abdpoinal radical hysterectomy. Perioperative and post-operative outcomes were not significantly different.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C, et al. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):584–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Obermair A, Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT. A phase III randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 2016. URL of the record NLM Identifier: NCT00614211. Accessed 2016/12/12.
  35. 35.
    Biewenga P, van der Velden J, Mol BW, Stalpers LJ, Schilthuis MS, van der Steeg JW, et al. Prognostic model for survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(4):768–76. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25658.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Macdonald OK, Chen J, Dodson M, Lee CM, Gaffney DK. Prognostic significance of histology and positive lymph node involvement following radical hysterectomy in carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(4):411–6. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31819142dc.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wiebe E, Denny L, Thomas G. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119 Suppl 2(SUPPL. 2):S100–9. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(12)60023-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plentl AA, Friedman EA. Lymphatic system of the female genitalia. The morphologic basis of oncologic diagnosis and therapy. Major Probl Obstet Gynecol. 1971;2:1–223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines): cervical cancer. Version I.2016. 2016.
  40. 40.
    Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, Deavers MT, Dos Reis R, Levenback CF, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):93–9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ab474d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Kadkhodayan S, Hasanzadeh M, Treglia G, Azad A, Yousefi Z, Zarifmahmoudi L, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for lymph nodal staging of uterine cervix cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the pertinent literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.09.010. Sentinel lymph node mapping showed a pooled detection rate of 89.2% and a pooled sensitivity of 90%. In addition, sentinel lymph nodes were able to be identified outside of the usual pelvic lymphadenectomy borders.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Magrina JF. Primary surgery for stage IB-IIA cervical cancer, including short-term and long-term morbidity and treatment in pregnancy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1996;21:53–9.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ohba Y, Todo Y, Kobayashi N, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, et al. Risk factors for lower-limb lymphedema after surgery for cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2011;16(3):238–43. doi: 10.1007/s10147-010-0171-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niikura H, Okamoto S, Otsuki T, Yoshinaga K, Utsunomiya H, Nagase S, et al. Prospective study of sentinel lymph node biopsy without further pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with sentinel lymph node-negative cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(7):1244–50. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318263f06a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lecuru F, Mathevet P, Querleu D, Leblanc E, Morice P, Darai E, et al. Bilateral negative sentinel nodes accurately predict absence of lymph node metastasis in early cervical cancer: results of the SENTICOL study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1686–91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.0432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    • Mathevet P, Lecuru F, editors. Effect of sentinel lymph-node biopsy alone on the morbidity of the surgical treatment of early cervical cancer: results from the prospective randomized study Senticol2. ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2015. In patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes, those who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy alone had less surgical morbidity compared to those who underwent complete pelvic lymphadenectomy. There were no false negative sentinel lymph nodes in the study.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    • Ruscito I, Gasparri ML, Braicu EI, Bellati F, Raio L, Sehouli J, et al. Sentinel node mapping in cervical and endometrial cancer: indocyanine green versus other conventional dyes—a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3749–56. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5236-x. Detection rates of sentinel lymph nodes by indocyanine green (ICG) are equivalent to that of combination blue dye and radiactive tracer. ICG is likely to be favored given its ease of use and safety.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Lennox GK, Covens A. Can sentinel lymph node biopsy replace pelvic lymphadenectomy for early cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(1):16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.08.337. Patients with negative nodes by sentinel lymph node biopsy alone or complete pelvic lymphadenectomy had no difference in two or five recurrence-free survival. Those who had complete pelvic lymphadenectomy had increased operative time, transfusions, and post-operative infections compared to those who had sentinel lymph node biopsy alone.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gortzak-Uzan L, Jimenez W, Nofech-Mozes S, Ismiil N, Khalifa MA, Dube V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer: is it time to change the gold standard? Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(1):28–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.10.049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR, Munsell MF, Jhingran A, Wharton JT, et al. Quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7428–36. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.3996.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G. Lymphedema and bladder-emptying difficulties after radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer and among population controls. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(3):1130–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00601.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sood AK, Nygaard I, Shahin MS, Sorosky JI, Lutgendorf SK, Rao SS. Anorectal dysfunction after surgical treatment for cervical cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195(4):513–9. doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01311-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Trimbos JB, Franchi M, Zanaboni F, Velden J, Vergote I. ‘State of the art’ of radical hysterectomy; current practice in European oncology centres. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.09.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wenzel L, DeAlba I, Habbal R, Kluhsman BC, Fairclough D, Krebs LU, et al. Quality of life in long-term cervical cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(2):310–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Benedetti-Panici P, Maneschi F, D'Andrea G, Cutillo G, Rabitti C, Congiu M, et al. Early cervical carcinoma: the natural history of lymph node involvement redefined on the basis of thorough parametrectomy and giant section study. Cancer. 2000;88(10):2267–74. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000515)88:10<2267::AID-CNCR10>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Averette HE, Nguyen HN, Donato DM, Penalver MA, Sevin BU, Estape R, et al. Radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer. A 25-year prospective experience with the Miami technique. Cancer. 1993;71(4 Suppl):1422–37. doi: 10.1002/cncr.2820710407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1975;30(3):220–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Photopulos GJ, Zwaag RV. Class II radical hysterectomy shows less morbidity and good treatment efficacy compared to class III. Gynecol Oncol. 1991;40(1):21–4. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(91)90078-j.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Magrina JF, Goodrich MA, Weaver AL, Podratz KC. Modified radical hysterectomy: morbidity and mortality. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59(2):277–82. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1995.0022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kadar N, Saliba N, Nelson JH. The frequency, causes and prevention of severe urinary dysfunction after radical hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90(9):858–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb09328.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Zapardiel I, Zanagnolo V, Mangioni C. Class I versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. A prospective randomized study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(3):203–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.12.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, Henningsohn L, Steineck G. Vaginal changes and sexuality in women with a history of cervical cancer. N Engl J med. 1999;340(18):1383–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199905063401802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    • Aerts L, Enzlin P, Verhaeghe J, Poppe W, Vergote I, Amant F. Long-term sexual functioning in women after surgical treatment of cervical cancer stages IA to IB: a prospective controlled study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(8):1527–34. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000236. Women with cervical cancer who underwent surgical management had signficiantly worse sexual dysfunction, psychological function, and quality of partner relationship compared to healthy controls.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kinney WK, Hodge DO, Egorshin EV, Ballard DJ, Podratz KC. Identification of a low-risk subset of patients with stage IB invasive squamous cancer of the cervix possibly suited to less radical surgical treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;57(1):3–6. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1995.1091.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, DePetrillo AD, Lickrish G, et al. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84(1):145–9. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Stegeman M, Louwen M, van der Velden J, ten Kate FJ, den Bakker MA, Burger CW, et al. The incidence of parametrial tumor involvement in select patients with early cervix cancer is too low to justify parametrectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(2):475–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wright JD, Grigsby PW, Brooks R, Powell MA, Gibb RK, Gao F, et al. Utility of parametrectomy for early stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 2007;110(6):1281–6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Ryu HS. A model for prediction of parametrial involvement and feasibility of less radical resection of parametrium in patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):82–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Klat J, Sevcik L, Simetka O, Graf P, Dvorackova J, Kraft O. What is the risk for parametrial involvement in women with early-stage cervical cancer with tumour <20 mm and with negative sentinel lymph nodes? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(6):540–4. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gemer O, Eitan R, Gdalevich M, Mamanov A, Piura B, Rabinovich A, et al. Can parametrectomy be avoided in early cervical cancer? An algorithm for the identification of patients at low risk for parametrial involvement. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(1):76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.10.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Meirovitz M, Sade S, Dreiher J, Shaco-Levy R. Is radical hysterectomy necessary in early cervical cancer? Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2013;76(3):158–62. doi: 10.1159/000353899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee JY, Youm J, Kim JW, Cho JY, Kim MA, Kim TH, et al. Identifying a low-risk group for parametrial involvement in microscopic stage IB1 cervical cancer using criteria from ongoing studies and a new MRI criterion. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(167):167. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1184-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yamazaki H, Todo Y, Okamoto K, Yamashiro K, Kato H. Pretreatment risk factors for parametrial involvement in FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(4):255–61. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.255.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rob L, Pluta M, Strnad P, Hrehorcak M, Chmel R, Skapa P, et al. A less radical treatment option to the fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(2 Suppl):S116–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pluta M, Rob L, Charvat M, Chmel R, Halaska M Jr, Skapa P, et al. Less radical surgery than radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):181–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.02.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Biliatis I, Kucukmetin A, Patel A, Ratnavelu N, Cross P, Chattopadhyay S, et al. Small volume stage 1B1 cervical cancer: is radical surgery still necessary? Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):73–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    • Bouchard-Fortier G, Reade CJ, Covens A. Non-radical surgery for small early-stage cervical cancer. Is it time? Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):624–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.037. Of women with early cervical cancer who met low-risk criteria and underwent non-radical surgical treatment (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy), they had excellent oncological outcomes with no recurrences after a median follow-up time of 21 months.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Plante M. Radical versus simple hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection in patients with low-risk early stage cervical cancer (SHAPE). Identifier: NCT01658930. Accessed 2016/9/5.
  79. 79.
    MD Anderson Cancer Center. Conservative surgery for women with cervical cancer. Identifier: NCT01048853. Accessed 2016/9/5.
  80. 80.
    Covens A. Studying the physical function and quality of life before and after surgery in patients with stage 1 cervical cancer. Identifier: NCT01649089. Accessed 2016/9/5.
  81. 81.
    Sopracordevole F, Chiossi G, Barbero M, Cristoforoni P, Ghiringhello B, Frega A, et al. Surgical approach and long-term clinical outcome in women with microinvasive cervical cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(8):4345–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dargent D, Martin X, Sacchetoni A, Mathevet P. Laparoscopic vaginal radical trachelectomy: a treatment to preserve the fertility of cervical carcinoma patients. Cancer. 2000;88(8):1877–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Abu-Rustum NR, Neubauer N, Sonoda Y, Park KJ, Gemignani M, Alektiar KM, et al. Surgical and pathologic outcomes of fertility-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy for FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(2):261–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    • Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A, Chargari C, Leary A, Morice P. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):e240–53. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30032-8. Fertility-sparing surgery can be considered for women with stage IB1 cervical cancer. The approach must take into account tumor size and presence of lymphovascular space invasion. Onologic and obstetric outcomes are accepable, but must be weighed against risks.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, Sevin BU, Creasman WT, Major F. Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;38(3):352–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zivanovic O, Leitao MM Jr, Park KJ, Zhao H, Diaz JP, Konner J, et al. Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of outcome, recurrence pattern and the impact of platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):590–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    • Speiser D, Kohler C, Schneider A, Mangler M. Radical vaginal trachelectomy: a fertility-preserving procedure in early cervical cancer in young women. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(17):289–95. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0289. In women with early cervical cancer with tumor size <2 cm who wish to preserve fertility, radical vaginal trachelectomy is feasible and oncologically safe. Patients, who do go on to get pregnant, have higher rates of preterm births.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Plante M, Renaud MC, Francois H, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an oncologically safe fertility-preserving surgery. An updated series of 72 cases and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94(3):614–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.05.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Willows K, Lennox G, Covens A. Fertility-sparing management in cervical cancer: balancing oncologic outcomes with reproductive success. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2016;3:9. doi: 10.1186/s40661-016-0030-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiffany Zigras
    • 1
  • Genevieve Lennox
    • 1
  • Karla Willows
    • 1
  • Allan Covens
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, T2051 Odette Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations