Radical Trachelectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer
In patients with early-stage cervical cancer, radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the gold standard. However, this disease commonly affects women of childbearing age; thus an option to spare fertility is ideal. This option came to fruition in the early 90s when the Dargent procedure or radical trachelectomy was first reported. The procedure has subsequently been modified as technology has improved and now may be performed via minimally invasive techniques. Additionally, with the advent of the sentinel lymph node procedure, the morbidity in this usually young patient population has continued to improve. There is a multitude of data to show that oncologic outcomes, concerning recurrence and mortality, are comparable to radical hysterectomy, as well as obstetrical outcomes are favorable. Data to support its acceptance within the gynecologic oncology community has led to radical trachelectomy being implemented into governing body guidelines and should be offered to appropriate candidates with early-stage cervical cancer who wish to preserve fertility.
KeywordsEarly stage cervical cancer Radical trachelectomy Fertility sparing
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors 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.
References and Recommending Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figs. 2018. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2018. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#references. Accessed 15 July 2018
- 2.SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Cervical Cancer. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html. Accessed 15 July 2018
- 6.Roy M, Plante M. Radical vaginal trachelectomy. In: Querleu D, Dargent D, Childers JM, editors. Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecological Oncology. London: Blackwell Science; 1999. p. 78–82.Google Scholar
- 9.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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ismiil N, Ghorab Z, Covens A, Nofech-Mozes S, Saad RE, Dube V, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment of the radical trachelectomy specimen. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(1):42–6.Google Scholar
- 17.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2018). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervix.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr 2018.
- 18.Ungar L, Palfalvi L, Hogg R, Siklos P, Bpyle DCM, del Priore G, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy: a fertility-preserving option for women with early cervical cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:366–9.Google Scholar
- 20.• Li X, Li J, Wu X. Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of cervical stenosis after radical trachelectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(13):1751–9. A systematic review of cervical stenosis following radical trachelectomy. Google Scholar
- 23.• Escobar PF, Ramirez PT, Garcia Ocasio RE, Pareja R, Zimberg S, Sprague M, et al. Utility of indocyanine green (ICG) intra-operative angiography to determine uterine vascular perfusion at the time of radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):357–61. First evaluation of ICG fluorescence angiography in patients undergoing radical trachelectomy to evaluate uterine perfusion. Based on our real-time intraoperative angiography observations, there is no need to preserve the uterine artery during radical trachelectomy to maintain uterine viability.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Guo J, Zhang Y, Chen X, Sun L, Chen K, Sheng X. Surgical and oncologic outcomes of radical abdominal trachelectomy versus hysterectomy for stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol.Google Scholar
- 28.•• Vieira MA, Rendon GJ, Munsell M, Echeverri L, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM, et al. Radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A comparison of laparotomy and minimally invasive surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(3):585–9. This is the largest comparative series of open vs. MIS of radical trachelectomy.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Del Priore G, Ungar L, Richard Smith J, Heller PB. Regarding “First case of a centropelvic recurrence after radical trachelectomy: literature review and implications for the preoperative selection of patients,” (92:1002–5) by Morice et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(2):414 author reply:414–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.•• Zhang Q, Li W, Kanis MJ, Qi G, Li M, Yang X, et al. Oncologic and obstetrical outcomes with fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46580–92 This is one of the largest meta-analysis to evaluate the rates of recurrence, survival, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes of early-stage cervical cancer treated with fertility-sparing methods such as cervical conization and radical trachelectomy with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 36.Steed H, Covens A. Radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenopathy for preservation of fertility. Postgrad Obstet Gynecol. 2003;23:1.Google Scholar
- 37.Covens A. Preserving fertility in early stage cervical cancer with radical trachelectomy. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;48:46–66.Google Scholar
- 42.Ungar L, Palfalvi L, Smith JR, et al. Update on and long term follow-up of 91 abdominal radical trachelectomies. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:S20.Google Scholar