1
|
Piedimonte S, Helpman L, Pond G, Nelson G, Kwon J, Altman A, Feigenberg T, Elit L, Lau S, Sabourin J, Samouelian V, Willows K, Aubrey C, Jang JH, Teo-Fortin LA, Cockburn N, Saunders NB, Shamiya S, Vicus D, Plante M. Surgical margin status in relation to surgical approach in the management of early-stage cervical Cancer: A Canadian cervical Cancer collaborative (4C) study. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 174:21-27. [PMID: 37146436 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.03.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Surgical margin status in women undergoing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is an important prognostic factor. We sought to determine whether close (<3 mm) and positive surgical margins are associated with surgical approach and survival. METHODS This is a national retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Patients with stage IA1/LVSI-Ib2(FIGO 2018) with lesions up to 4 cm at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2019 were included. Surgical approach included robotic/laparoscopic (LRH), abdominal (ARH) or combined laparoscopic-assisted vaginal/vaginal (LVRH) radical hysterectomy. Recurrence free survival(RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS 956 patients met inclusion criteria. Surgical margins were as follows: negative (87.0%), positive (0.4%) or close <3 mm (6.8%), missing (5.8%). Most patients had squamous histology (46.9%); 34.6% had adenocarcinomas and 11.3% adenosquamous. Most were stage IB (75.1%) and 24.9% were IA. Mode of surgery included: LRH(51.8%), ARH (39.2%), LVRH (8.9%). Predictive factors for close/positive margins included stage, tumour diameter, vaginal involvement and parametrial extension. Surgical approach was not associated with margin status (p = 0.27). Close/positive margins were associated with a higher risk of death on univariate analysis (HR = non calculable for positive and HR = 1.83 for close margins, p = 0.017), but not significant for OS when adjusted for stage, histology, surgical approach and adjuvant treatment. There were 7 recurrences in patients with close margins (10.3%, p = 0.25). 71.5% with positive/close margins received adjuvant treatment. In addition, MIS was associated with a higher risk of death (OR = 2.39, p = 0.029). CONCLUSION Surgical approach was not associated to close or positive margins. Close surgical margins were associated with a higher risk of death. MIS was associated with worse survival, suggesting that margin status may not be the driver of worse survival in these cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabrina Piedimonte
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Limor Helpman
- Department of biostatistics, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Canada
| | - Gregory Pond
- Department of biostatistics, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Canada
| | - Gregg Nelson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
| | - Janice Kwon
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Alon Altman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Tomer Feigenberg
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Trillium Health partners, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Laurie Elit
- Department of biostatistics, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Canada
| | - Susie Lau
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Jeanelle Sabourin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Vanessa Samouelian
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - Karla Willows
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Halifax, Halifax, Canada
| | - Christa Aubrey
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Ji-Hyun Jang
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Ly-Ann Teo-Fortin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
| | - Norah Cockburn
- Department of biostatistics, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton Health Sciences, Canada
| | - Nora-Beth Saunders
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Sarah Shamiya
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Danielle Vicus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Marie Plante
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aubrey C, Pond GR, Helpman L, Vicus D, Elit L, Plante M, Lau S, Kwon JS, Altman AD, Willows K, Feigenberg T, Sabourin J, Samouelian V, Bernard L, Cockburn N, Saunders NB, Piedimonte S, Teo-Fortin LA, Kim SR, Sadeq N, Jang JH, Shamiya S, Nelson G. Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:1977-1985. [PMID: 36826114 PMCID: PMC9955159 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30020153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2023] [Revised: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of macroscopic cervical cancer leads to worse oncologic outcomes than with open surgery. Preoperative conization may mitigate the risk of surgical approach. Our objective was to describe the oncologic outcomes in cases of cervical cancer initially treated with conization, and subsequently found to have no residual cervical cancer after hysterectomy performed via open and minimally invasive approaches. This was a retrospective cohort study of surgically treated cervical cancer at 11 Canadian institutions from 2007 to 2017. Cases initially treated with cervical conization and subsequent hysterectomy, with no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen were included. They were subdivided according to minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic (MIS) or laparoscopically assisted vaginal/vaginal hysterectomy (LVH)), or abdominal (AH). Recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Chi-square and log-rank tests were used to compare between cohorts. Within the total cohort, 238/1696 (14%) had no residual disease on hysterectomy specimen (122 MIS, 103 AH, and 13 VLH). The majority of cases in the cohort were FIGO 2018 stage IB1 (43.7%) and underwent a radical hysterectomy (81.9%). There was no statistical difference between stage, histology, and radical vs simple hysterectomy between the abdominal and minimally invasive groups. There were no significant differences in RFS (5-year: MIS/LVH 97.7%, AH 95.8%, p = 0.23) or OS (5-year: MIS/VLH 98.9%, AH 97.4%, p = 0.10), although event-rates were low. There were only two recurrences. In this large study including only patients with no residual cervical cancer on hysterectomy specimen, no significant differences in survival were seen by surgical approach. This may be due to the small number of events or due to no actual difference between the groups. Further studies are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christa Aubrey
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-780-432-8337
| | - Gregory R. Pond
- Department of Oncology, Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Limor Helpman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Danielle Vicus
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Laurie Elit
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Marie Plante
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universite de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, QC G1R 2J6, Canada
| | - Susie Lau
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1E2, Canada
| | - Janice S. Kwon
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
| | - Alon D. Altman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Winnipeg Women’s Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0L8, Canada
| | - Karla Willows
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Center, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3K 4N1, Canada
| | - Tomer Feigenberg
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON L5B 1B8, Canada
| | - Jeanelle Sabourin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada
| | - Vanessa Samouelian
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada
| | - Laurence Bernard
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Norah Cockburn
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
| | - Nora-Beth Saunders
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Winnipeg Women’s Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0L8, Canada
| | - Sabrina Piedimonte
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Ly-Ann Teo-Fortin
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universite de Quebec, Laval University, Quebec City, QC G1R 2J6, Canada
| | - Soyoun Rachel Kim
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Noor Sadeq
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Center, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3K 4N1, Canada
| | - Ji-Hyun Jang
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
| | - Sarah Shamiya
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T5H 3V9, Canada
| | - Gregg Nelson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Guani B, Gaillard T, Teo-Fortin LA, Balaya V, Feki A, Paoletti X, Mathevet P, Plante M, Lecuru F. Estimation risk of lymph nodal invasion in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: Cervical cancer application. Front Oncol 2022; 12:935628. [PMID: 36033437 PMCID: PMC9413841 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.935628] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Lymph node status is a major prognostic factor in early-stage cervical cancer. Predicting the risk of lymph node metastasis is essential for optimal therapeutic management. The aim of the study was to develop a web-based application to predict the risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with early-stage (IA1 with positive lymph vascular space invasion, IA2 and IB1) cervical cancer. Materials and methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from two prospective multicenter trials, Senticol 1 and 2 pooled together in the training dataset. The histological risk factors were included in a multivariate logistic regression model in order to determine the most suitable prediction model. An internal validation of the chosen prediction model was then carried out by a cross validation of the ‘leave one out cross validation’ type. The prediction model was implemented in an interactive online application of the ‘Shinyapp’ type. Finally, an external validation was performed with a retrospective cohort from L’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec in Canada. Results Three hundred twenty-one patients participating in Senticol 1 and 2 were included in our training analysis. Among these patients, 280 did not present lymph node invasion (87.2%), 13 presented isolated tumor cells (4%), 11 presented micrometastases (3.4%) and 17 macrometastases (5.3%). Tumor size, presence of lymph-vascular space invasion and stromal invasion were included in the prediction model. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve from this model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% CI [0.69– 0.90]). The AUC from the cross validation was 0.65. The external validation on the Canadian cohort confirmed a good discrimination of the model with an AUC of 0.83. Discussion This is the first study of a prediction score for lymph node involvement in early-stage cervical cancer that includes internal and external validation. The web application is a simple, practical, and modern method of using this prediction score to assist in clinical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedetta Guani
- Department of Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Gynecology, Hopital Fribourgeois (HFR), Fribourg, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
- *Correspondence: Benedetta Guani,
| | | | | | - Vincent Balaya
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FOCH Hospital, Suresnes, France
| | - Anis Feki
- Department of Gynecology, Hopital Fribourgeois (HFR), Fribourg, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
| | | | - Patrice Mathevet
- Department of Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marie Plante
- Faculty of Medicine, Laval University of Quebec, Quebec, QC, Canada
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Quebec, L’Hôtel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec, QC, Canada
| | - Fabrice Lecuru
- Department of Gynecology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
- Department of Medicine, University of Paris, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nica A, Benseler A, PARBHAKAR A, Teo-Fortin LA, Heyns M, Lee M, Covens A, Plante M, May T. Robotic versus vaginal radical trachelectomy for reproductive-aged women with early cervical cancer: a multi-center Canadian study (097). Gynecol Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(22)01323-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
5
|
Piedimonte S, Pond GR, Plante M, Nelson G, Kwon J, Altman A, Feigenberg T, Elit L, Lau S, Sabourin J, Willows K, Aubrey C, Jang JH, Teo-Fortin LA, Cockburn N, Saunders NB, Shamiya S, Helpman L, Vicus D. Comparison of outcomes between abdominal, minimally invasive and combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with stage IAI/IA2 cervical cancer: 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) study. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 166:230-235. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2022] [Revised: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 05/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|