Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fertility-Sparing Options for Early Cervical Cancer: Optimism for Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes

  • Gynecologic Oncology (C Feltmate, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

It is well established that in carefully selected patients with early cervical cancer, fertility-sparing procedures are equally safe in terms of recurrence and mortality to the standard treatment with radical hysterectomy. This review highlights the evolution in fertility-sparing management options, with long-term evidence on oncologic and obstetrical outcomes presented.

Recent Findings

The long-term safety of radical vaginal and abdominal trachelectomy is well established. Recently published series also suggest that when patient selection is limited to tumors <2 cm, the oncologic safety for laparoscopic or robotic radical trachelectomy is comparable to the vaginal procedure. Though limited by small numbers and shorter follow-up, favorable outcomes have also been demonstrated for women undergoing conization with tumors <2 cm and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection for tumors 2–4 cm. Approximately 30 % of women will experience infertility following fertility-sparing treatment, and half of these women can successfully achieve pregnancy with reproductive assistance. Pregnancy can be complicated by premature rupture of membranes, second trimester loss, or preterm delivery. However, most women who achieve pregnancy will reach the third trimester.

Summary

Fertility preservation options are available for women with early stage cervical cancer who wish to preserve their fertility. Radical trachelectomy has equal oncologic safety to radical hysterectomy in selected patients and can be performed by a variety of routes with minimally invasive options providing the best surgical and obstetrical outcomes. Conization has the potential to improve reproductive outcomes even more. For women with tumors 2–4 cm, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a promising treatment strategy under active investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. SEER stat fact sheets: Cervix uteri cancer. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html Accessed June 3rd 2016.

  2. Xu L, Sun F, Wang Z. Radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2011;90:1200–9. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01231.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Diaz J, Sonoda Y, Leitao M, Zivanovic O, Brown CL, Chi DS, et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:255–60. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beiner M, Covens A. Surgery insight: radical vaginal trachelectomy as a method of fertility preservation for cervical cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4:353–61. doi:10.1038/ncponc0822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marchiolé P, Benchaib M, Buenerd A, Lazlo E, Dargent D, Mathevet P. Oncological safety of laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical trachelectomy (LARVT or Dargent’s operation): a comparative study with laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH). Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:132–41. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.03.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dargent D, Brun JL, Roy M, Remi I. Pregnancies following radical trachelectomy for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;52:105 [Abstract].

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dargent D, Martin X, Sacchetoni A, Mathevet P. Laparoscopic vaginal radical trachelectomy: a treatment to preserve the fertility of cervical carcinoma patients. Cancer. 2000;88:1877–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000415)88:8<1877::AID-CNCR17>3.0.COO;2-W.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Plante M, Gregoire J, Renaud M, Roy M. The vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update of a series of 125 cases and 106 pregnancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290–7. doi:10.1016/j.gyno.2010.12.345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum N. Radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer in patients who desire to preserve fertility. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:50–5. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.10.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Plante M, Renaud M, François H, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an oncologically safe fertility-preserving surgery. An updated series of 72 cases and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:614–23. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.05.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Covens A, Shaw P, Murphy J, DePetrillo D, Lickrish G, Laframboise S, et al. Is radical trachelectomy a safe alternative to radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA-B carcinoma of the cervix? Cancer. 1999;86:2273–9. doi:10.1002/(SIC)1097-0142(19991201)86:11<2273::AID-CNCR15>3.0.CO;2-C.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burnett A, Roman L, O'Meara A, Morrow C. Radical vaginal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;88:419–23. doi:10.1016/S0090-8258(02)00142-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith J, Boyle D, Corless D, Ungar L, Lawson AD, Del Priore G, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy: a new surgical technique for the conservative management of cervical carcinoma. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:1196–2000. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb10946.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abu-Rustum N, Sonoda Y, Black D, Levine D, Chi D, Barakat R. Fertility-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy for cervical carcinoma: technique and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:807–13. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Einstein M, Park K, Sonoda Y, Carter J, Chi DS, Barakat RR, et al. Radical vaginal versus abdominal trachelectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer: a comparison of surgical and pathologic outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:73–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abu-Rustum NRSY. Fertility-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy for cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:599. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.09.007.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abu-Rustum N, Neubauer N, Sonoda Y, Park KJ, Gemignani M, Alektiar KM, et al. Surgical and pathologic outcomes of fertility-sparing radical abdominal trachelectomy for FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:261–4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Cibula D, Slama J, Fischerova D. Update on abdominal radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S111–5. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rodriguez M, Guimares O, Rose PG. Radical abdominal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with uterine conservation and subsequent pregnancy in the treatment of early invasive cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:370–4. doi:10.1067/mob.2001.115866.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ungár L, Smith JR, Pálfalvi L, Del Priore G. Abdominal radical trachelectomy during pregnancy to preserve pregnancy and fertility. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:811–4. doi:10.1097/01-AOG.0000216015.15415.5f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang J, Li J, Wang S, Zhang D, Wu X. On what scale does it benefit the patients if uterine arteries were preserved during ART? Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:154–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.04.043 .This articles compares women who have undergone ART with and without uterine artery preservation and uses CTA imaging to demonstrate that the ovarian artery becomes the dominate blood supply for the uterus in either case. Even with an attempt at preservation, CTA only demonstrated bilateral patent uterine arteries in 2/16 patients

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee C, Huang K, Wang C, Yen C, Lai C. Laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for stage Ib1 cervical cancer. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10:111–5. doi:10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60244-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cibula D, Ungár L, Pálfalvi L, Binó B, Kuzel D. Laparoscopic abdominal radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:707–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bafghi A, Castaigne D, Pomel C. Radical trachelectomy: from the laparoscopic approach to the vaginal route. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2006;35:696–701 JGYN-11-2006-35-7-0368-2315-101019-200607634.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim J, Park J, Kim D, Kim Y, Kim Y, Nam J. Fertility-sparing laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for young women with early stage cervical cancer. BJOG. 2010;117:340–7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02446.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park NY, Chong GO, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS. Total laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical trachelectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19:53–8. doi:10.1089/lap.2007.0231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chuang L, Lerner D, Liu C, Nezhat F. Fertility-sparing robotic-assisted radical trachelectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:767–70. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Burnett A, Stone P, Duckworth L, Roman J. Robotic radical trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:569–72. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.06.005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hong D, Lee Y, Park N, Chong G, Park I, Cho Y. Robotic uterine artery preservation and nerve-sparing radical trachelectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:391–6. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e31820b3003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Persson J, Kannisto P, Bossmar T. Robot-assisted abdominal laparoscopic radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:564–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.05.034.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lu Q, Zhang Y, Liu C, Wang S, Guo S, Zhang Z. Total laparoscopic radical trachelectomy in the treatment of early squamous cell cervical cancer: a retrospective study with 8-year follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:275–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johansen G, Lönnerfors C, Falconer H, Persson J. Reproductive and oncologic outcome following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141:160–5. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.028 .This is the largest series described for patients undergoing robotic radical trachelectomy, with similar oncologic outcomes compared to vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic routes. In addition, favorable reproductive outcomes were demonstrated with 17/21 (81 %) conceiving and 16 of those (94 %) delivering in the third trimester

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van de Lande J, Torrenga B, Raijmakers P, Hoekstra OS, van Baal MW, Brölmann HA, et al. Sentinel lymph node detection in early stage uterine cervix carcinoma: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:604–13. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Altgassen C, Hertel H, Brandstädt A, Köhler C, Dürst M, Schneider A, et al. Multicenter validation study of the sentinel lymph node concept in cervical cancer: AGO study group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2943–51. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Koh W, Greer B, Abu-Rustum N, Apte SM, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. Cervical cancer, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:395–404 The latest version of the NCCN guidelines supports fertility sparing procedures for women with stage IB1 or lesser stage cervical squamous, adenosquamous, or adenocarcinoma.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hertel H, Köhler C, Grund D, et al. Radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT) combined with laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy: prospective multicenter study of 100 patients with early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:506–11. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.03.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hauerberg L, Høgdall C, Loft A, Ottosen C, Bjoem SF, Mosgaard BJ, et al. Vaginal radical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Results of the Danish National Single Center Strategy. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:304–10. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.05.016 .All women undergoing radical trachelectomy since 2002 in Denmark were referred to a single institution and prospectively followed. This study provides further confirmation of safe long-term oncologic outcomes with a median follow-up of 56 months and highlights the frequent need for assisted reproductive technologies in this population (55 %)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pareja R, Rendón G, Sanz-Lomana C, Monzón O, Ramirez P. Surgical, oncological, and obstetrical outcomes after abdominal radical trachelectomy—a systematic literature review. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:77–82. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Li X, Li J, Wu X. Incidence, risk factors and treatment of cervical stenosis after radical trachelectomy: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1751–9. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.012 .Cervical stenosis is a common problem complicating about 10% of radical trachelectomies and incidence can be decreased with use of a stent during cerclage placement. If it occurs post-procedure, effective management can include serial dilation or removal of the cerclage

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Olawaiye A, Del Carmen M, Tambouret R, Goodman A, Fuller A, Duska L. Abdominal radical trachelectomy: success and pitfalls in a general gynecologic oncology practice. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:506–10. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carter J, Raviv L, Sonoda Y, Chi D, Abu-Rustum NR. Recovery issues of fertility-preserving surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and a model for survivorship. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:106–16. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182017989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Carter J, Sonoda Y, Baser RE, Raviv L, Chi DS, Barakat RR, et al. A 2-year prospective study assessing the emotional, sexual, and quality of life concerns of women undergoing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:358–65. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Nick A, Frumovitz M, Soliman P, Schmeler K, Ramirez P. Fertility sparing surgery for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer: open vs. robotic radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:276–80. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Persson J, Imboden S, Reynisson P, Andersson B, Borgfeldt C, Bossmar T. Reproducibility and accuracy of robot-assisted laparoscopic fertility sparing radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:484–8. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.08.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Beiner M, Hauspy J, Rosen B, Murphy J, Lamframboise S, Nofesh-Mozes S, et al. Radical vaginal trachelectomy vs. radical hysterectomy for small early stage cervical cancer: a matched case-control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:168–71. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.04.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Plante M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S105–10. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Api M, Boza A, Ceyhan M. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer: a case report and review of literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.11.009 .This review comparing two different minimally invasive strategies demonstrates greater operative time but shorter length of stay, lower blood loss and wider parametrial resection for robotic versus laparoscopic radical trachlectomy. Oncologic and obstetric outcomes were similar

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vieira M, Rendón G, 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;138:585–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.023 .While oncologic outcomes were similar, among 58 women undergoing open radical trachelectomy, obstetric outcomes were better compared to 42 women undergoing either robotic or laparoscopic procedures. However, the open route also resulted in greater blood loss and longer hospital stays

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Maneo A, Sideri M, Scambia G, Boveri S, Dell’Anna T, Villa M, et al. Simple conization and lymphadenectomy for the conservative treatment of stage IB1 cervical cancer. An Italian experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:557–60. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rob L, Charvat M, Robova H, Pluta M, Strnad P, Hrehorcak M, Skapa P. Less radical fertility-sparing surgery than radical trachelectomy in early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:304–10. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00758.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rob L, Pluta M, Strnad P, Hrehorcak M, Chmel R, Skapa P, et al. A less radical treatment option to the fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S116–20. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Biliatis I, Kucukmetin A, Patel A, Ratnavelu N, Cross P, Chattopadyay S, et al. Small volume stage 1B1 cervical cancer: is radical surgery still necessary? Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:73–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fagotti A, Gagliardi M, Moruzzi C, Carone V, Scambia G, Fanfani F. Excisional cone as fertility-sparing treatment in early-stage cervical cancer. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1109–12. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Plante M. Evolution in fertility-preserving options for early-stage cervical cancer: radical trachelectomy, simple trachelectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:982–9. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318295906b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Raju S, Papadopoulos A, Montalto S, Coutts M, Culora G, Kodampur M, et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for early cervical cancer-approach to less radical surgery. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:311–7. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182370f51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ramirez P, Pareja R, Rendón G, Millan C, Frumovitz M, Schmeler K. 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;132:254–9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.09.004 .This review summaries the data suggesting that ultraconservative surgery may be a safe alternative to radical hysterectomy for patients with low-risk features, defined as tumors less than 2 cm with minimal invasion with or without LVSI. In these patients, there is a low rate of lymph node metastasis, parametrial invasion and even residual disease in the trachelectomy specimen

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shepherd J. Uterus-conserving surgery for invasive cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19(577):590. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.02.009.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, Deavers MT, Dos Reis R, Levenback CF, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:93–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ab474d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wright JD, Grigsby PW, Brooks R, Powell MA, Gibb RK, Gao F, et al. Utility of parametrectomy for early stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 2007;110:1281–6. doi:10.1002/cncr.22899.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kinney WK, Hodge DO, Egorshin EV, Ballard DJ, Podratz KC. Identification of a low-risk subset of patients with stage IB1 invasive squamous cancer of the cervix possibly suited to less radical surgical treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;57:3–6. doi:10.1006/gyno.1995.1091.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, Lamframboise S, DePetrillo AD, Lickrish G, et al. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84:145–9. doi:10.1006/gyno.2001.6493.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Steed H, Capstick V, Schepansky A, Honore L, Hiltz M, Faught W. Early cervical cancer and parametrial involvement: is it significant? Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:53–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.01.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Stegeman M, Louwen M, van der Velden J, ten Kate FJ, den Bakker MJ, Burgur CW, et al. The incidence of parametrial tumor involvement in select patients with early cervix cancer is too low to justify parametrectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:475–80. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pareja R, Rendón G, Vasquez M, Echeverri L, Sanz-Lomana C, Ramirez P. Immediate radical trachelectomy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by conservative surgery for patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumors 2 cm or larger: a literature review and analysis of oncological and obstetrical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:574–80. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.051 .For women with stage IB tumors >2 cm, NACT has similar fertility preservation rates and oncologic outcomes compared to abdominal or vaginal radical trachelectomy and should be considered in this patient population

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Naik R, Cross P, Nayar A, Mayadevi S, Lopes A, Godfrey K, et al. Conservative surgical management of small-volume stage IB1 cervical cancer. BJOG. 2007;144:958–63. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01408.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wethington S, Sonoda Y, Park K, Alektiar KM, Tew WP, Chi DS, et al. Expanding the indications for radical trachelectomy: a report on 29 patients with stage IB1 tumors measuring 2 to 4 centimeters. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1092–8. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318296034e.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Lintner B, Saso S, Tarnai L, Novak Z, Palfalvi L, Del Priore G, et al. Use of abdominal radical trachelectomy to treat cervical cancer greater than 2 cm in diameter. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:1065–70. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e318295fb41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rob L, Skapa P, Robova H. Fertility-sparing surgery in patients with cervical cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:192–200. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70084-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Andrade J, Marana H, Mangieri L, Matthes A, Cunha S, Bighetti S. Successful preservation of fertility subsequent to a complete pathologic response of a squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with primary systemic chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:213–5. doi:10.1006/gyno.1999.5717.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Palaia I, Musella A, Loprete E, Achilli C, Perniola G, Panici P. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus fertility-sparing surgery in locally advanced cervical cancer: case report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:121–2. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.08.691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Landoni F, Parma G, Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Sideri M, Colombo N, et al. Chemo-conization in early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:S125–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.07.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Maneo A, Chiari S, Bonazzi C, Mangioni C. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and conservative surgery for stage IB1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:432–43. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Marchiole P, Tigaud J, Costantini S, Mammoliti S, Buenerd A, Moran E, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vaginal radical trachelectomy for fertility-sparing treatment in women affected by cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB-IIA1. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122:484–90. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Robova H, Halaska M, Pluta M, Skapa P, Matecha J, Lisy J, et al. Oncological and pregnancy outcomes after high-dose density neoadjuvant chemotherapy and fertility-sparing surgery in cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:213–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.021 .In 28 women with stage IB tumors >2 cm, NACT was able to preserve fertility in 71 %. However, 20 % of these women recurred, and there was a 10 % mortality rate in this group

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yan H, Liu Z, Fu X, Li Y, Che H, Mo R, et al. Long-term outcomes of radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the IB1 cervical cancer: a series of 60 cases. Int J Surg. 2016;29:38–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.03.019 .In patients with tumors <2 cm, NACT was used prior to vaginal radical trachelectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. There was no need to convert to a hysterectomy and only 10 % of patients required post-operative radiation, suggesting that NACT may be an effective strategy to increase rates of fertility preservation

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lanowska M, Mangler M, Speiser D, Bockholdt C, Schneider A, Köhler C, et al. Radical vaginal trachelectomy after laparoscopic staging and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with early-stage cervical cancer over 2 cm: oncologic, fertility, and neonatal outcome in a series of 20 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:586–93. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000080 .Given the higher rate of lymph node metastases in patients with tumors >2 cm, this study assessed the feasibility and safety of performing a laparoscopic lymph node dissection prior to initiation of NACT. The authors report that laparoscopic lymph node dissection should be considered in selecting which patients should be offered NACT

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Plante M, Lau S, Brydon L, Swenerton K, LeBlanc R, Roy M. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by vaginal radical trachelectomy in bulky stage IB1 cervical cancer: case report. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:367–70. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.02.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Marchiolé P, Buénerd A, Benchaib M, Nezhat K, Dargent D, Mathevet P. Clinical significance of lympho vascular space involvement and lymph node micrometastases in early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case-control surgico-pathological study. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:727–32. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Milliken D, Shepherd J. Fertility preserving surgery for carcinoma of the cervix. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:575–80. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e32830b0dc2.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Selman T, Mann C, Zamora J, Appleyard T, Khan K. Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2008:178:855. Doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071124.

  81. Boss E, van Golde R, Beerendonk C, Massuger L. Pregnancy after radical trachelectomy: a real option? Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:S152–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.07.071.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Speiser D, Mangler M, Köhler C, Hasenbein K, Hertel H, Chiantera V, et al. Fertility outcome after radical vaginal trachelectomy: a prospective study of 212 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:1635–9. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182230294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Shepherd J, Mould T, Oram D. Radical trachelectomy in early stage carcinoma of the cervix: outcome as judged by recurrence and fertility rates. BJOG. 2001;108:882–5. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00212.x.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Bernardini M, Barrett J, Seaward G, Covens A. Pregnancy outcomes in patients after radical trachelectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1378–82. doi:10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00776-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Noyes N, Abu-Rustum N, Ramirez P, Plante M. Options in the management of fertility-related issues after radical trachelectomy in patients with early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:117–20. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.030.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Plante M, Gregoire J, Renaud M, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Noel P, et al. Simple vaginal trachelectomy in early-stage low-risk cervical cancer: a pilot study of 16 cases and review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:916–22. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182954ddf.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim C, Abu-Rustum N, Chi D, Gardner GJ, Leitao MN, Carter J, et al. Reproductive outcomes of patients undergoing radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:585–8. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.03.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Mathevet P, Laszlo de Kaszon E, Dargent D. Fertility preservation in early cervical cancer. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2003;31:706–12. doi:10.1016/S1297-9589(03)00200-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ebisawa K, Takano M, Fukuda M, et al. Obstetric outcomes of patients undergoing total laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:83–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Park J, Kim D, Suh D, et al. Reproductive outcomes after laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014;25:9–13. doi:10.3802/jgo.2015.25.1.9 .Fifty-five women who underwent laparoscopic radical trachelectomy had favorable pregnancy and live birth rates (55 and 71 %, respectively) but high rates of preterm delivery (60 %)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;98:3–10. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.04.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Lavie O, Peer G, Sagi S, Ben Arie A, Auslender R. The management of an early-missed abortion after radical trachelectomy—a case report and a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(4):1688–90. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00645.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Martin A, Lathrop E. Controversies in family planning: management of second-trimester losses in the setting of an abdominal cerclage. Contraception. 2013;87(6):728–31. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Fonseca EB, Celik E, Parra M, Singh M, Nicolaides KH. Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Progesterone and the risk of preterm birth among women with a short cervix. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(5):462–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa067815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Hassan SS, Romero R, Vidyadhari D, Fusey S, Baxter JK, Khandelwal M, et al. Vaginal progesterone reduces the rate of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):18–31. doi:10.1002/uog.9017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E, Dombrowski MP, Sibai B, Moawad AH, et al. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2379–85. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa035140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 130: prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):964–73 reaffirmed 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Shepherd J. Cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26:293–309. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Li J, Wu X, Li X, Abdominal JX. Radical trachelectomy: is it safe for IB1 cervical cancer with tumors ≥2 cm? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:87–92. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.07.079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Edey K, Denton K, Murdoch J. The role of cytological follow-up after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Cytopathology. 2014;25:95–100. doi:10.1111/cyt.12066 .Cytology sampling following radical trachelectomy can be challenging, with high rates of endometrial sampling. Cytology review in these patients should be centralized with a pathologist experienced with this patient population

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Singh N, Titmuss E, Chin Aleong J, Sheaff MT, Curran G, Jacobs IJ, et al. A review of post-trachelectomy isthmic and vaginal smear cytology. Cytopathology. 2004;15:97–103. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2303.2003.00122.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Gohrab Z, Ismill N, Covens A, Nofech-Mozes S, Saad RS, Dubé V, et al. Postradical vaginal trachelectomy follow-up by isthmic-vaginal smear cytology: a 13-year audit. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:641–6. doi:10.1002/dc.21059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lanowska M, Mangler M, Grittner U, Akbar GR, Speiser D, von Tucher E, et al. Isthmic-vaginal smear cytology in the follow-up after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer: is it safe? Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:349–58. doi:10.1002/cncy.21402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Salani R, Backes FJ, Fung MFK, Holschneider CH, Parker LP, Bristow RE, et al. Posttreatment surveillance and diagnosis of recurrence in women with gynecologic malignancies: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:466–78. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ismiil N, Ghorab Z, Covens A, Nofech-Mozes S, Saad R, Dubé V, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:42–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Virginia , Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Christine Garcia & Linda R. Duska

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Kate E. Pettit

Authors
  1. Christine Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate E. Pettit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda R. Duska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda R. Duska.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Christine Garcia, Kate E. Pettit, and Linda R. Duska 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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia, C., Pettit, K.E. & Duska, L.R. Fertility-Sparing Options for Early Cervical Cancer: Optimism for Oncologic and Obstetric Outcomes. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 296–306 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0177-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0177-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation