The aim of this study was to evaluate predictive factors for the presence of residual disease after conization followed by definitive surgery in cervical cancer, and suggest a margin distance threshold that could predict residual disease.
We retrospectively analyzed a series of 42 patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent primary conization before definitive surgical treatment from March 2009 to May 2020. All conization specimens were reviewed for endocervical, ectocervical, and radial margins. Cases with residual disease in magnetic resonance imaging before definitive surgery were excluded.
Thirty-three (78.6%) patients underwent hysterectomies and 9 (21.4%) trachelectomies ± lymph node staging. Twelve (28.6%) cases were stage IA1, 5 (11.8%) cases were stage IA2, 13 (31%) cases were stage IB1, 11 (26.2%) cases were stage IB2, and 1 (2.4%) case was stage IIIC1 [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2019]. We found residual disease in 17 (40.4%) surgical specimens. Of the 20 patients with negative margins, there were still 3 (15%) cases with residual disease. Conversely, residual disease was identified in 14 (63.6%) of the 22 patients with positive cone margins (p = 0.001). Tumor size [odds ratio (OR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.33] and positive endocervical margin status (OR 33.6, 95% CI 3.85–293.3) were related to a higher risk of residual disease in multivariate analysis. Notably, all patients with tumors larger than 2 cm had residual disease, in contrast to 29.4% in lesions up to 2 cm (p = 0.002).
We found that tumor size and positive margin were predictive factors for residual disease. We could not suggest a reliable minimum margin distance threshold that could predict residual disease.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30032-8.
Ramirez PT, Pareja R, Rendón GJ, Millan C, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM. Management of low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: should conization, simple trachelectomy, or simple hysterectomy replace radical surgery as the new standard of care? Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):254–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.09.004.
Baiocchi G, de Brot L, Faloppa CC, et al. Is parametrectomy always necessary in early-stage cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(1):16–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.514.
Bentivegna E, Maulard A, Pautier P, Chargari C, Gouy S, Morice P. Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(5):1195-1211.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.032.
Gien LT, Covens A. Gynecologic oncology fertility-sparing options for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117(2):350–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.039.
Li X, Xia L, Chen X, Fu Y, Wu X. Simple conization and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;158(2):231–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.035.
Suri A, Frumovitz M, Milam MR, Ramirez PT. Preoperative pathologic findings associated with residual disease at radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(1):110–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.011.
Diaz ES, Aoyama C, Baquing MA, et al. Predictors of residual carcinoma or carcinoma-in-situ at hysterectomy following cervical conization with positive margins. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.019.
Roman L, Felix J, Muderspach L, Agahjanian A, Qian D, Paulmorrow C. Risk of residual invasive disease in women with microinvasive squamous cancer in a conization specimen. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(5):759–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00414-6.
Chang D-Y, Cheng W-F, Torng P-L, Chen R-J, Huang S-C. Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;63(1):53–6. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1996.0277.
Phongnarisorn C, Srisomboon J, Khunamornpong S, et al. The risk of residual neoplasia in women with microinvasive squamous cervical carcinoma and positive cone margins. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(2):655–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00399.x.
Hefler LA, Polterauer S, Schneitter A, et al. Repeat surgery in patients with cervical cancer stage FIGO IA1: a series of 156 cases and a review of the literature. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(2):565–8.
Suri A, Frumovitz M, Milam MR, dos Reis R, Ramirez PT. Preoperative pathologic findings associated with residual disease at radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(1):110–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.011.
Bai H, Cao D, Yuan F, et al. Accuracy of conization procedure for predicting pathological parameters of radical hysterectomy in stage Ia2–Ib1 (≤ 2 cm) cervical cancer. Sci Rep. 2016;6(Apr):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25992.
El-Nashar SA, Shazly SA, Hopkins MR, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Famuyide AO. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure instead of cold-knife conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21(2):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000287.
Jiang Y, Chen C, Li L. Comparison of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0170587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170587.
Smith B, McCann GA, Phillips G, et al. Less radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: can conization specimens help identify patients at low risk for parametrial involvement? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(2):290–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.029.
Tomao F, Maruccio M, Preti EP, et al. Conization in early stage cervical cancer: pattern of recurrence in a 10-year single-institution experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27(5):1001–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000991.
Maneo A, Sideri M, Scambia G, et al. Simple conization and lymphadenectomy for the conservative treatment of stage IB1 cervical cancer. An Italian experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123(3):557–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.009.
Bogani G, Chiappa V, Vinti D, et al. Long-term results of fertility-sparing treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(1):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.007.
Slama J, Cerny A, Dusek L, et al. Results of less radical fertility-sparing procedures with omitted parametrectomy for cervical cancer: 5 years of experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142(3):401–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.008.
Raju SK, Papadopoulos AJ, Montalto SA, et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for early cervical cancer-approach to less radical surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(2):311–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182370f51.
Andikyan V, Khoury-Collado F, Denesopolis J, et al. Cervical conization and sentinel lymph node mapping in the treatment of stage I cervical cancer: is less enough? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(1):113–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000034.
Glauco Baiocchi, Thiago Pereira Diniz, Graziele Bovolim, Bruna Tirapelli Gonçalves, Lillian Yuri Kumagai, Henrique Mantoan, Carlos Chaves Faloppa, Andrea Paiva Gadelha Guimaraes, Alexandre Andre Balieiro Anastacio da Costa, Levon Badiglian-Filho, and Louise De Brot declare no conflicts of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Baiocchi, G., Diniz, T.P., Bovolim, G. et al. Predictive Factors for Residual Disease After Conization in Cervical Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09656-x