Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 267–273 | Cite as

Outcome of Patients with Cervical and Vaginal Stump Carcinomas Treated with More Conservative Surgical Approaches: a 9-Year Experience of a Tertiary Oncology Center

  • Mohamed Hegazy
  • Ashraf Khater
  • Mohamed Awad
  • Sherif Kotb
  • Waleed Elnahas
  • Sameh Roshdy
  • Osama Eldamshety
  • Fayez Shahatto
  • Omar Farouk
  • Emadeldeen Hamed
  • Refaat Hegazi
  • Ola T. Abdel Dayem
  • Anas M. Gamal
Original Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

The surgical management of stump carcinoma includes the gold standard pelvic exenteration and more conservative approaches. This study aimed to investigate the outcome among a cohort of vaginal and cervical stump carcinomas that were treated with an intent of organ preservation. This is a prospective study of 60 patients with a biopsy confirmed stump carcinomas at a tertiary care oncology center in Egypt. The demographic, surgical, and pathological data were collected and patients underwent radical surgery with an intent of organ preservation guided by margin negativity. The pathologic data were correlated with the postoperative mortality. Correlation coefficients were calculated for simple correlation and regression analysis was used to investigate the independent predictors of survival. Pelvic exenteration was conducted in 30/60 (50%), while wide local excision with safety margins was possible in 26/60 (43%) and in two cases, resection was precluded. Mean hospital stay in days was 19 ± 9 (range 4–61). Overall operative morbidity was 83.3% (50/60). Perioperative mortality was 6.7% (4/60). Five-year disease-free survival was 40% (24/60). Five-year overall survival was 50% (30/60). The resection margin status and the perioperative therapy were independent prognostic factors of DFS (p = 0.003 and 0.02, respectively. Only the resection margin status was significantly associated with overall survival (p = 0.009). There was no increased mortality with introduction of more conservative surgical approaches. The resection margin status is the most important determinant of recurrence free and overall survivals.

Keywords

Stump Carcinoma Surgery Postoperative mortality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful for Dr. Mohammed Elmaadawy for his support all over this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have a financial interest or conflict of interest in the outcome of the research. This study was performed through self-funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Boyd SC, Look KY (2001) Prognostic factors for carcinoma of the cervical stump and cervical carcinoma associated with pregnancy. CME Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 6:347–356Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbons SK, Keys HM (1996) Special situations in the management of early cervical cancer. In: Rubin SC, Hoskins WJ (eds) Cervical cancer and preinvasive neoplasia. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp 259–260Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunschwig A (1948) Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma. Cancer 1:177–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berek JS, Howe C, Lagasse LD, Hacker NF (2005) Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic malignancy: survival and morbidity analysis of the 45-year experience at UCLA. Gynecol Oncol 99:153–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bramhall SR, Harrison JD, Burton A, Wallace DMA, Chan KK, Harrison G et al (1999) Phase II trial of radical surgery for locally advanced pelvic neoplasia. Br J Surg 86(6):805–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore DH, Blessing JA, McQuellon RP, Thaler HT, Cella D, Benda J et al (2004) Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 22(15):3113–3119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McQuellon RP, Thaler HT, Cella D, Moore DH (2006) Quality of life (QOL) outcomes from a randomized trial of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced cervical cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 101(2):296–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hatch KD, Berek JS (2005) Pelvic exenteration. In: Berek JS, Hacker NF, editors. Practical gynecologic oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia’ Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, p 801–16Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ungar L, Palfalvi L, Novak Z (2008) Primary pelvic exenteration in cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 111:S9–S12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleisch MC, Pantke P, Beckmann MW, Schnuerch HG, Ackermann R, Grimm MO, Bender HG, Dall P (2007) Predictors for long-term survival after interdisciplinary salvage surgery for advanced or recurrent gynecologic cancers. J Surg Oncol 95(6):476–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maggioni A, Roviglione G, Landoni F, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Colombo N, Bocciolone L, Biffi R, Minig L, Morrow CP (2009) Pelvic exenteration: ten-year experience at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. Gynecol Oncol 114(1):64–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaur M, Joniau S, D'Hoore A, Van Calster B, Van Limbergen E, Leunen K, Penninckx F, Van Poppel H, Amant F, Vergote I (2012) Pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: a study of 36 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(5):889–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferenschild FT, Vermaas M, Verhoef C, Ansink AC, Kirkels WJ, Eggermont AM, de Wilt JH (2009) Total pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent malignancies. World J Surg 33(7):1502–1508CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marnitz S, Köhler C, Müller M, Behrens K, Hasenbein K, Schneider A (2006) Indications for primary and secondary exenterations in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 103:1023–1030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roos EJ, Van Eijkeren MA, Boon TA, Heintz AP (2005) Pelvic exenteration as treatment of recurrent or advanced gynecologic and urologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:624–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma S, Odunsi K, Driscoll D, Lele S (2005) Pelvic exenterations for gynecological malignancies: twenty-year experience at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Int J Gynecol Cancer 15:475–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoo HJ, Lim MC, Seo SS, Kang S, Yoo CW, Kim JY, Park SY (2012) Pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer: ten-year experience at National Cancer Center in Korea. J Gynecol Oncol 23(4):242–250CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jäger L, Nilsson PJ, Rådestad AF (2013) Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic malignancy: a study of 28 consecutive patients at a single institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer 23(Issue 4):755–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Hegazy
    • 1
  • Ashraf Khater
    • 1
  • Mohamed Awad
    • 2
  • Sherif Kotb
    • 1
  • Waleed Elnahas
    • 1
  • Sameh Roshdy
    • 1
  • Osama Eldamshety
    • 1
  • Fayez Shahatto
    • 1
  • Omar Farouk
    • 1
  • Emadeldeen Hamed
    • 1
  • Refaat Hegazi
    • 3
  • Ola T. Abdel Dayem
    • 4
  • Anas M. Gamal
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyOncology Center- Mansoura University, Egypt (OCMU)MansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Medical OncologyOncology Center- Mansoura University, Egypt (OCMU)MansouraEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Preventive MedicineMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  4. 4.Departments of Anesthesia and Intensive CareMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations