Stage IB1 cervical cancer treated with modified radical or radical hysterectomy: Does size determine risk factors?

1Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: This study was performed to investigate prognostic factors status at smaller tumors in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (CC) who underwent modified radical or radical hysterectomy. Matherial and metods: Data from patients diagnosed with CC between January 1995 and January 2017 at the Gynecological Oncology Department, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital and Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, were investigated. A total of 182 stage IB1 CC cases were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Patients were divided into two groups according to tumor size ( < 2 cm and ≥ 2 cm). There were no complications associated with the operation in patients with a tumor size < 2 cm. Among patients with a tumor size ≥ 2 cm, however, 0.9% (n = 1) developed bladder laceration, 0.9% (n = 1) rectum laceration, and 0.9% (n = 1) pulmonary emboli (P = 0.583). The rates of intermediate risk factors (depth of stromal invasion and lymphovascular space invasion) were significantly higher and lymph node involvement significantly more frequent in patients with a tumor size ≥ 2 cm. However, there were no significant differences in parametrial invasion or vaginal margin involvement between the two groups. Conclusions: Intermediate risk factors and lymph node metastasis were significantly less frequent in patients with small tumors measuring < 2 cm. However, although parametrial involvement and vaginal margin involvement were less common in patients with small tumors compared with large tumors (≥ 2 cm), the differences were not significant.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gülseren, V., Kocaer, M., Güngördük, Ö., Özdemir, I. A., Gölbaşi, C., Budak, A., … Güngördük, K. (2018). Stage IB1 cervical cancer treated with modified radical or radical hysterectomy: Does size determine risk factors? Ginekologia Polska, 89(12), 667–671. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2018.0112

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free