Abstract

BackgroundRadical hysterectomy and radiotherapy have long been mainstays of cervical cancer treatment. Early stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB1–IIA) is traditionally treated using radical surgery combined with radiotherapy, while locally advanced cervical cancer is treated using radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy. In this retrospective study, we describe and analyse the presenting clinical features and outcomes in our cohort and evaluate possible risk factors for postoperative morbidity in women who underwent surgery for chronic radiation enteropathy (CRE).MethodsOne hundred sixty-six eligible cervical cancer patients who underwent surgery for CRE were retrospectively identified between September 2003 and July 2014 in a prospectively maintained database. Among them, 46 patients received radical radiotherapy (RRT) and 120 received radical surgery plus radiotherapy (RS + RT). Clinical features, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and risk factors for postoperative morbidity were analysed.ResultsRS + RT group patients were more likely to present with RTOG/EORTC grade III late morbidity (76.1 % vs 92.5 %; p = 0.004), while RRT group patients tended to show RTOG/EORTC grade IV late morbidity (23.9 % vs 7.5 %; p = 0.004). One hundred forty patients (84.3 %) were treated with aggressive resection (anastomosis 57.8 % and stoma 26.5 %). Overall and major morbidity, mortality and incidence of reoperation in the RRT and RS + RT groups did not differ significantly (63 % vs 64.2 % [p = 1.000], 21.7 % vs 11.7 % [p = 0.137], 6.5 % vs 0.8 % [p = 0.065] and 6.5 % vs 3.3 % [p = 0.360], respectively). However, incidence of permanent stoma and mortality during follow-up was higher in the RRT group than in the RS + RT group (44.2 % vs 12.6 % [p = 0.000] and 16.3 % vs 3.4 % [p = 0.004], respectively). In multivariate analysis, preoperative anaemia was significantly associated with overall morbidity (p = 0.015), while severe intra-abdominal adhesion (p = 0.017), ASA grades III–V (P = 0.022), and RTOG grade IV morbidity (P = 0.018) were predicators of major morbidity.ConclusionsRadiation-induced late morbidity tended to be severe in the RRT group with more patients suffering RTOG/EORTC grade IV morbidity, while there were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity, mortality and reoperation. Aggressive resection was feasible with acceptable postoperative outcomes. Severe intra-abdominal adhesion, ASA grades III–V and RTOG/EORTC grade IV late morbidity contributed significantly to major postoperative morbidity.

Highlights

  • Radical hysterectomy and radiotherapy have long been mainstays of cervical cancer treatment

  • Patient characteristics Patients in the radical radiotherapy (RRT) group mostly had locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), with 92.9 % of patients staged as IIb–Va; patients in the RS + RT group had early stage cervical cancer, with 86.7 % of patients staged as I–IIa

  • The median latency period from completion of radiotherapy to disease onset in the RS + RT group tended to be shorter than in the RRT group (6 months vs 9 months; p = 0.000)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Radical hysterectomy and radiotherapy have long been mainstays of cervical cancer treatment. Stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB1–IIA) is traditionally treated using radical surgery combined with radiotherapy, while locally advanced cervical cancer is treated using radiotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy. In this retrospective study, we describe and analyse the presenting clinical features and outcomes in our cohort and evaluate possible risk factors for postoperative morbidity in women who underwent surgery for chronic radiation enteropathy (CRE). Early stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB1–IIA) has been treated with either primary surgery, with or without combined RT, or with definitive RT [2,3,4,5,6]. The reported incidence of late gastrointestinal toxicities from RT varies from 8 % to 50 % in cervical cancer patients [10,11,12, 3, 13, 14]; some of the patients with CRE will require surgery to treat obstruction, fistulas, perforation or bleeding [15]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.