Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery

  • Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  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. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 2016/9/4.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. World Health Organization. Baseline country survey on medical devices 2010. Geneva: WHO Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00614211?term=laparoscopy+cervical+cancer&rank=4. Accessed 2016/12/12.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines): cervical cancer. Version I.2016. 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/cervical.pdf.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Plante M. Radical versus simple hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection in patients with low-risk early stage cervical cancer (SHAPE). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658930. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01658930. Accessed 2016/9/5.

  79. MD Anderson Cancer Center. Conservative surgery for women with cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01048853. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01048853. Accessed 2016/9/5.

  80. Covens A. Studying the physical function and quality of life before and after surgery in patients with stage 1 cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01649089. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01649089. Accessed 2016/9/5.

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, M700-610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Tiffany Zigras, Genevieve Lennox & Karla Willows

  2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, T2051 Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Allan Covens

Authors
  1. Tiffany Zigras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Genevieve Lennox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karla Willows
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allan Covens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allan Covens.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Cancers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zigras, T., Lennox, G., Willows, K. et al. Early Cervical Cancer: Current Dilemmas of Staging and Surgery. Curr Oncol Rep 19, 51 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0614-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0614-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation