Advertisement

Management of elderly women with cervical cancer

  • Holm Eggemann
  • Tanja Ignatov
  • Christina Henrike Geyken
  • Stephan Seitz
  • Atanas IgnatovEmail author
Original Article – Clinical Oncology
  • 220 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Elderly women with cervical cancer receive less therapy in comparison with their younger counterparts. The exact reason(s) for this treatment strategy remains unclear.

Patients and methods

We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry-based study of 1559 patients with cervical cancer. The primary outcome was the reason for not performing the indicated treatment.

Results

Median follow-up was 67.8 months. A total of 956 women were eligible for analysis: 693 (64.2%) were younger than 60 years and 387 (35.8%) were aged 61 years old and older. Elderly women were more likely to have undifferentiated cervical cancer at an advanced stage. For early stage (stage IA1–IIA), tumors patients 61 years old and older were less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.39; 95% CI 0.20–0.77] and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.21–0.66) compared with the group of patients aged < 60 years. The rate of lymphadenectomy was similar in both age groups. Patients 61 years old and older with advanced stage (IIB–IV) cervical cancer were also less likely to receive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.42; 95% CI 0.27–0.66], lymphadenectomy (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.12–0.51) and radiochemotherapy (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20–0.48) compared with patients aged < 60 years. Notably, the rate of indicated but not performed therapies proportionally increased with an increase in patient age and the most important reason for this phenomenon was the failing of recommendation.

Conclusions

Elderly women with cervical cancer are undertreated and this is more likely because the therapy was not recommended.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Elderly Radiation Lymphadenectomy Radical surgery 

Notes

Funding

This study was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. In accordance with the statement of the Research and Ethical Committee of the Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany, additional individual consent for this analysis was not needed. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before treatment. An additional individual consent for this analysis was not needed.

References

  1. Clark LH, Jackson AL, Gehrig PA, Bae-Jump V, Van Le L, Ko EM (2016) Adjuvant treatment and clinical trials in elderly patients with endometrial cancer: a time for change? Int J Gynecol Cancer 26(2):282–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. de Rijke JM, van der Putten HW, Lutgens LC, Voogd AC, Kruitwagen RF, van Dijck JA, Schouten LJ (2002) Age-specific differences in treatment and survival of patients with cervical cancer in the southeast of The Netherlands, 1986–1996. Eur J Cancer 38(15):2041–2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dumas L, Ring A, Butler J, Kalsi T, Harari D, Banerjee S (2016) Improving outcomes for older women with gynaecological malignancies. Cancer Treat Rev 50:99–108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Kaiser K, Burger E, Costa SD, Ignatov A (2016) Survival advantage of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142(5):1051–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Burger E, Costa SD, Ignatov A (2017) Management of elderly women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 146(3):519–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Elit L (2014) Cervical cancer in the older woman. Maturitas 78(3):160–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox KV, Shah CA, Swisher EM, Garcia RL, Mandel LS, Gray HJ, Swensen RE, Goff BA (2008) An evaluation of cervical cancer in women age sixty and over. Gynecol Oncol 109(1):53–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuchtner C, Manetta A, Walker JL, Emma D, Berman M, DiSaia PJ (1992) Radical hysterectomy in the elderly patient: analysis of morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166(2):593–597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodheart M, Jacobson G, Smith BJ, Zhou L (2008) Chemoradiation for invasive cervical cancer in elderly patients: outcomes and morbidity. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18(1):95–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ioka A, Tsukuma H, Ajiki W, Oshima A (2005) Influence of age on cervical cancer survival in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35(8):464–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Levrant SG, Fruchter RG, Maiman M (1992) Radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: morbidity and survival in relation to weight and age. Gynecol Oncol 45(3):317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindegaard JC, Thranov IR, Engelholm SA (2000) Radiotherapy in the management of cervical cancer in elderly patients. Radiother Oncol 56(1):9–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH (2013) Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancer. J Surg Oncol 108(1):63–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, 2nd, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, Souhami L, Grigsby P, Gordon W Jr, Alberts DS (2000) 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 18(8): 1606–1613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pignon T, Horiot JC, Bolla M, van Poppel H, Bartelink H, Roelofsen F, Pene F, Gerard A, Einhorn N, Nguyen TD, Vanglabbeke M, Scalliet P (1997) Age is not a limiting factor for radical radiotherapy in pelvic malignancies. Radiother Oncol 42(2):107–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rauh-Hain JA, Pepin KJ, Meyer LA, Clemmer JT, Lu KH, Rice LW, Uppal S, Schorge JO, Del Carmen MG (2015) Management for elderly women with advanced-stage, high-grade endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 126(6):1198–1206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma C, Deutsch I, Horowitz DP, Hershman DL, Lewin SN, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Chao CK, Wright JD (2012) Patterns of care and treatment outcomes for elderly women with cervical cancer. Cancer 118(14):3618–3626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. van der Aa MA, Siesling S, v d Poll-Franse LV, Schutter EM, Lybeert ML, Coebergh JW (2009) Age-specific differences in the treatment of cervical cancer in the east and the south of The Netherlands 1989–2004. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 147(1):78–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wright JD, Gibb RK, Geevarghese S, Powell MA, Herzog TJ, Mutch DG, Grigsby PW, Gao F, Trinkaus KM, Rader JS (2005) Cervical carcinoma in the elderly: an analysis of patterns of care and outcome. Cancer 103(1):85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyOtto-von-Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Medical Center RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations