Fertility-sparing treatment with conization versus radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: inverse propensity score weighted analysis

Antonino Ditto,Fabio Martinelli,Marco Dri,Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore,Giorgio Bogani,Shigeky Kusamura,Biagio Paolini,Edgardo Somigliana,Francesco Raspagliesi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005418
2024-10-07
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Abstract:Objective To report 20 years of experience with fertility-sparing surgery for patients with early-stage cervical cancer, comparing the oncological outcomes with outcomes for those who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Methods Patients with pre-operative stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer (any grade) were included (2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system). Inclusion criteria comprised age (18–44 years), histology (squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous) and absence of previous/concomitant cancer. A thorough counseling about oncological and obstetrical potential risks was mandatory for patients asking for fertility sparing. Results for consecutive patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (cervical conization and nodal evaluation) were analyzed and compared with results for patients treated with radical surgery. Oncological outcomes were assessed with a propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Overall, 109 patients were included in the study. Ten patients abandoned the fertility-sparing route because of nodal involvement (n=5), margin positive (n=2), or because patients requested radical treatment (n=3). Sentinel node mapping was performed in 19 of 49 (38.8%) patients in the fertility-sparing surgery group. Among the patients in the fertility-sparing group, 6 (12.2%) patients relapsed. 34 (69.4%) patients attempted to conceive. Pre-operative covariates selected to define the probability of having either fertility-sparing or radical surgery were well balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Pathological features were similar between the groups, including grading, histotype, stage, and lymphovascular space invasion. After a median follow-up of 38.8 (range 5–186) months there were no differences in progression-free survival (p=0.32) and overall survival (p=0.74) between the fertility-sparing and radical hysterectomy groups. The results after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment did not show significant differences in progression-free survival (p=0.72) and overall survival (p=0.71) between the groups. Conclusion Fertility-sparing surgery based on conization plus laparoscopic lymph node evaluation, may be considered safe and effective for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
oncology,obstetrics & gynecology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?