Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
ESGO Survey on Current Practice in the Management of Cervical Cancer
Charles Univ Prague, Czech Republic.
Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and Oncology. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Center for Surgery, Orthopaedics and Cancer Treatment, Department of Oncology.
Leiden Univ, Netherlands.
Tbilisi Canc Ctr, Rep of Georgia.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, ISSN 1048-891X, E-ISSN 1525-1438, Vol. 28, no 6, p. 1226-1231Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective The aim of this survey was to acquire an overview of the current management of cervical cancer with an emphasis on the early disease stages. Materials and Methods A hyperlink to the survey was sent to the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology Office database. The survey contained 6 groups of questions regarding the characteristics of respondents, pretreatment workup, management of the early stages of cervical cancer, adjuvant treatment, fertility-sparing treatment, and surveillance. Results In total, 566 responses were collected. The most frequent imaging method used in the workup was magnetic resonance imaging (74%), followed by computed tomography (54%) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (25%). Conization or simple hysterectomy was a preferred procedure in stage T1a1 lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-positive for 79% of respondents, in stage T1a2 LVSI-negative for 58%, and in stage T1a2 LVSI-positive for 28%. Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone was reported in stage T1a1 by 17% and in stage T1b1 less than 2 cm by 9%, whereas systematic lymphadenectomy by 29% and 90% of respondents. Macrometastases, micrometastases, and isolated tumor cells in lymph nodes were considered indications for adjuvant treatment by 96%, 93%, and 68% of respondents, respectively. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was reported by 28% and 19% of respondents in fertility-sparing and nonsparing management in stage T1b1. Over 60% of respondents recommend primary surgery for their patients with T1b2 N0 disease and 81% of them use a combination of adverse prognostic factors as indication for adjuvant radiotherapy in pN0 disease. Conclusions The results of this survey indicate considerable differences in the workup and treatment of cervical cancer in current clinical practice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS , 2018. Vol. 28, no 6, p. 1226-1231
Keywords [en]
Cervical cancer; Survey; Early stage; Staging; Treatment
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-149869DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001314ISI: 000437455300025PubMedID: 29958236OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-149869DiVA, id: diva2:1236426
Note

Funding Agencies|Charles University in Prague [UNCE 204065, Q28/LF1]

Available from: 2018-08-02 Created: 2018-08-02 Last updated: 2019-04-09

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åvall-Lundqvist, Elisabeth
By organisation
Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and OncologyFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Oncology
In the same journal
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 76 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf