Type II or type III radical hysterectomy compared to chemoradiotherapy as a primary intervention for stage IB2 cervical cancer

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with 528,000 estimated new cases globally in 2012. A large majority (around 85%) of the disease burden occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where it accounts for almost 12% of all female cancers. Treatment of stage IB2 cervical cancers, which sit between early and advanced disease, is controversial. Some centres prefer to treat these cancers by radical hysterectomy, with chemoradiotherapy reserved for those at high risk of recurrence. In the UK, we treat stage IB2 cervical cancers mainly with chemoradiotherapy, based on the rationale that a high percentage will have risk factors necessitating chemoradiotherapy postsurgery. There has been no systematic review to determine the best possible evidence in managing these cancers. Objectives: To determine if primary surgery for stage IB2 cervical cancer (type II or type III radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy) improves survival compared to primary chemoradiotherapy. To determine if primary surgery combined with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for stage IB2 cervical cancer increases patient morbidity in the management of stage IB2 cervical cancer compared to primary chemoradiotherapy. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 3), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2018) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018 week 16). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies up to April 2018. Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancers. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and analysed data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results: We identified 4968 records from the literature searches, but we did not identify any RCTs that compared primary surgery with chemoradiotherapy in stage IB2 cervical cancer. We found one NRS comparing surgery to chemoradiotherapy in IB2 and IIA2 cervical cancers which met the inclusion criteria. However, we were unable to obtain data for stage IB2 cancers only and considered the findings very uncertain due to a high risk of selection bias. Authors' conclusions: There is an absence of high-certainty evidence on the relative benefits and harms of primary radical hysterectomy versus primary chemoradiotherapy for stage IB2 cervical cancer. More research is needed on the different treatment options in stage IB2 cervical cancer, particularly with respect to survival, adverse effects, and quality of life to facilitate informed decision-making and individualised care.