SIMPLE VERSUS RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY IN WOMEN WITH LOW-RISK CERVICAL CANCER
Main Article Content
Keywords
Low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy, overall survival, disease-free survival, complication rates, quality of life
Abstract
Objective: To compare the outcomes of simple hysterectomy versus radical hysterectomy in women with low-risk cervical cancer.
Methods: A total of 165 women with low-risk cervical cancer were included in the study. Participants were divided into two groups: 85 underwent simple hysterectomy and 80 underwent radical hysterectomy. Data on surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and quality of life were collected through medical records and patient questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes between the two groups.
Results: The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 90% in the simple hysterectomy group and 92% in the radical hysterectomy group, showing no significant difference. Complication rates were significantly lower in the simple hysterectomy group at 15%, compared to 30% in the radical hysterectomy group (p < 0.05), with major complications such as urinary dysfunction, lymphedema, and pelvic infections being more prevalent in the radical hysterectomy group.
Conclusion: It is concluded that for women with low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy offers comparable overall and disease-free survival rates to radical hysterectomy, with significantly fewer complications and better quality of life outcomes. These findings suggest that simple hysterectomy may be a preferable surgical option for this patient population. Further research is recommended to confirm these results and to develop refined guidelines for surgical management of low-risk cervical cancer.
References
2. Anouk Bensel, Allan Covens, Simple hysterectomy SHAPE-ing up to be the treatment of choice for early cervical cancer under 2 cm , Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 35, 2, (2024).https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e49
3. Du, Y. and Xu, Y., 2022. Less extensive surgery for patients with FIGO stage IA2 cervical cancer: a population-based study. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 51, pp.102291-102291.
4. Liu, Q., Xu, Y., He, Y., et al., 2021. Simple hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2 cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer Management and Research, 13, pp.7823-7832.
5. Piedimonte, S., Pond, G.R., Plante, M., et al., 2022. Comparison of outcomes between abdominal, minimally invasive and combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with stage IAI/IA2 cervical cancer: 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) study. Gynecologic Oncology, 166, pp.230-235.
6. Wright, J.D., Grigsby, P.W., Brooks, R., et al., 2007. Utility of parametrectomy for early stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer, 110, pp.1281-1286.
7. Frumovitz, M., Sun, C.C., Schmeler, K.M., et al., 2009. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114, pp.93-99.
8. Schmeler, K.M., Frumovitz, M., Ramirez, P.T., 2011. Conservative management of early stage cervical cancer: is there a role for less radical surgery? Gynecologic Oncology, 120, pp.321-325.
9. Covens, A., Rosen, B., Murphy, J., et al., 2002. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecologic Oncology, 84, pp.145-149.
10. Ramirez, P.T., Pareja, R., Rendón, G.J., Millan, C., Frumovitz, M., Schmeler, K.M., 2014. Management of low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: should conization, simple trachelectomy, or simple hysterectomy replace radical surgery as the new standard of care? Gynecologic Oncology, 132, pp.254-259.
11. Schaafsma, M., Plante, M., Mom, C.H., van Trommel, N.E., 2022. Is less more in the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer? Current Opinion in Oncology, 34, pp.473-489.
12. Baiocchi, G., de Brot, L., Faloppa, C.C., et al., 2017. Is parametrectomy always necessary in early-stage cervical cancer? Gynecologic Oncology, 146, pp.16-19.
13. Tseng, J.H., Aloisi, A., Sonoda, Y., et al., 2018. Less versus more radical surgery in stage IB1 cervical cancer: a population-based study of long-term survival. Gynecologic Oncology, 150, pp.44-49.
14. Wu, J., Logue, T., Kaplan, S.J., et al., 2021. Less radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 224(4), pp.348-358.e5.
15. Sia, T.Y., Chen, L., Melamed, A., et al., 2019. Trends in use and effect on survival of simple hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134, pp.1132-1143.
16. Nguyen, J.M.V. and Covens, A., 2019. Simple hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: caution, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134, pp.1129-1131.
17. Schmeler, K.M., Pareja, R., Lopez Blanco, A., et al., 2021. ConCerv: a prospective trial of conservative surgery for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 31, pp.1317-1325.
18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2023. NCCN guidelines: cervical cancer. version 1.2023 [online] Available at: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1426 [Accessed 25 September 2023].
19. Carneiro, V.C.G., Batista, T.P., Andrade, M.R., et al., 2023. Proof-of-concept randomized phase II non-inferiority trial of simple versus type B2 hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer ≤2 cm (LESSER). International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 33, pp.498-503.
20. Obermair, A. and Pareja, R., 2023. Can simple hysterectomy replace radical hysterectomy as treatment of early-stage cervical cancer? International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 33, pp.647-647.
21. Studying the physical function and quality of life before and after surgery in patients with stage I cervical cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov, 2022. Available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01649089 [Accessed 25 September 2023].
22. Piedimonte, S., Helpman, L., Pond, G., et al., 2023. Surgical margin status in relation to surgical approach in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative (4C) study. Gynecologic Oncology, 174, pp.21-27.
23. Wang, W., Shang, C.L., Du, Q.Q., et al., 2017. Class I versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB1 (tumor ≤ 2 cm) cervical cancer: a matched cohort study. Journal of Cancer, 8, pp.825-831.
24. Ramirez, P.T., Frumovitz, M., Pareja, R., et al., 2018. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 379, pp.1895-1904.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr Reshma Kaiser Rafi
MRCOG, Senior Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Hillingdon Hospital NHS trust, Uxbridge, Greater London, UK
Fahmida Khatoon
Professor, Biochemistry Department, United Medical and Dental College
Isra Omar
Department of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Almmarefa University
Mohammad Mujtaba Khokhar
Shalamar Medical and Dental College/Hospital, Lahore
Likowsky Desir
Department of Surgery, Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, United States
Erum Halim
Postgraduate trainee FCPS, Department of Plastic Surgery, Combine Military Hospital, Peshawar
Moneira A Mansour
College of Medical Laboratory Science, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan