Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:14:26.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 7 - Cervix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

Edited by
Tahir Mahmood ,
Charles Savona-Ventura ,
Ioannis Messinis  and
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The EBCOG Postgraduate Textbook of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Gynaecology
 , pp. 275 - 292
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Muñoz, N. Human papillomavirus and cancer: the epidemiological evidence. J Clin Virol 2000;19:1–5.Google Scholar
IARC. Human Papillomaviruses. Lyon: IARC, 2012.Google Scholar
Wiebren, AT. Differences in human papillomavirus type distribution in high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer in Europe. Int J Can 2013;132:854–867.Google Scholar
de Sanjose, S, Quint, WG, Alemany, L, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol 2010;11: 1048–1056.Google Scholar
Arbyn, M. Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1665–1679.Google Scholar
Moreno, V, Bosch, FX, Muñoz, N, et al. Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case-control study. Lancet 2002;359:1085–1092.Google Scholar
Roura, E, Travier, N, Waterboer, T, et al. The influence of hormonal factors on the risk of developing cervical cancer and pre-cancer: results from the EPIC Cohort. PLoS One 2016;11:e0147029.Google Scholar
Iversen, L, Sivasubramaniam, S, Lee, AJ, et al. Lifetime cancer risk and combined oral contraceptives: the Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:580e1–580e9.Google Scholar
Adhikari, I, Eriksson, T, Luostarinen, T, Lehtinen, M, Apter, D. The risk of cervical atypia in oral contraceptive users. Eur J Contraception Reprod Health Care 2018;23:12–17.Google Scholar
Cortessis, V, Barrett, M, Brown, N, et al. Intrauterine device use and cervical cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:1226–1236.Google Scholar
McCrory, DC, Matchar, DB, Bastian, L. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 1999;5:1–6.Google Scholar
Klug, SJ, Neis, KJ, Harlfinger, W, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid-based cytology and computer assistance. Int J Cancer 2013;132:2849–2857.Google Scholar
Ronco, G, Dillner, J, Elfström, KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;9916:524–532.Google Scholar
Horn, J, Denecke, A, Luyten, A, et al. Reduction of cervical cancer incidence within a primary HPV screening pilot project (WOLPHSCREEN) in Wolfsburg, Germany. Br J Cancer 2019;120:1015–1022.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, GS, van Niekerk, D, Krajden, M, et al. Effect of screening with primary cervical HPV testing vs cytology testing on high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at 48 months: The HPV FOCAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018;320:43–52.Google Scholar
Solomon, D, Davey, D, Kurman, R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–2119.Google Scholar
Scheungraber, C, Koenig, U, Fechtel, B, et al. The colposcopic feature ridge sign is associated with the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 and human papillomavirus 16 in young women. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2009;13:13–16.Google Scholar
Kyrgiou, M, Athanasiou, A, Paraskevaidi, M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;354:i3633.Google Scholar
Karoliina, T, Athanasiou, A, Tikkinen, KAO, et al. Clinical course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018;360:k499.Google Scholar
Arbyn, M, Ronco, G, Anttila, A, et al. Evidence regarding HPV testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012;30(suppl 5):F88–F99.Google Scholar
Arbyn, M, Redman, CWE, Verdoodt, F, et al. Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1665–1679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soutter, WP, Sasieni, P, Panoskaltsis, T. Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2006;118:2048–2055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kocken, M, Uijterwaal, MH, de Vries, ALM, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:500–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, SE, Kjaer, SK, Sigurdsson, K, et al. Evaluation of quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine efficacy against cervical and anogenital disease in subjects with serological evidence of prior vaccine type HPV infection. Hum Vaccin 2009;5:696–704.Google Scholar
Palmer, T, Wallace, L, Pollock, KG, et al. Prevalence of cervical disease at age 20 after immunisation with bivalent HPV vaccine at age 12–13 in Scotland: retrospective population study. BMJ 2019;365:1161.Google Scholar
WHO. Weekly epidemiological record, July 2017.Google Scholar
Tino, F, Schwarz, TF, Galaj, A, et al. Ten‐year immune persistence and safety of the HPV‐16/18 AS04‐adjuvanted vaccine in females vaccinated at 15–55 years of age. Cancer Med 2017;6:2723–2731.Google Scholar
Arbyn, M, Xu, L, Simoens, C, Martin-Hirsch, PP. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD009069.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Bray, F, Ferlay, J, Soerjomataram, I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018. doi:10.3322/caac.21492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatla, N, Aoki, D, Sharma, DN, Sankaranarayanan, R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143(Suppl 2):22–36.Google Scholar
Cheng-Yen Lai, J, Yang, M-S, Lu, K-W, et al. The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018;57:627–635.Google Scholar
Cibula, D, Pötter, R, Planchamp, F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2018;28:641–655.Google Scholar
Leblanc, E, Katdare, N, Narducci, F, et al. Should systematic infrarenal para-aortic dissection be the rule in the pretherapeutic staging of primary or recurrent locally advanced cervix cancer patients with a negative preoperative para-aortic PET imaging? Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2016;26:169–175.Google Scholar
Querleu, D, Cibula, D, Abu-Rustum, NR. 2017 update on the Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:3406–3412.Google Scholar
Deli, T, Orosz, M, Jakab, A. Hormone replacement therapy in cancer survivors – review of the literature. Pathol Oncol Res 2019;26:63–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Gent, MDJM, Romijn, LM, van Santen, KE, Trimbos, JBMZ, de Kroon, CD. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy versus conventional radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and quality of life. Maturitas 2016;94:30–38.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Deng, L, Xu, H, Zhang, Y, Liang, Z. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer 2015;24:928.Google Scholar
Zanagnolo, V, Garbi, A, Achilarre, MT, Minig, L. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:379–396.Google Scholar
Ramirez, PT, Frumovitz, M, Pareja, R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESGO. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: an ESGO statement. Available at: www.esgo.org/explore/council/laparoscopic-radical-hysterectomy-an-esgo-statement.Google Scholar
Anon. Minimally invasive or abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:793–795.Google Scholar
Leblanc, E. [How I perform … vaginal preparation for a laparoscopic radical hysterectomy or the ‘Schautheim’ procedure]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2007;35:263–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, C, Hertel, H, Herrmann, J, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff: a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2019;29:845–850.Google Scholar
Querleu, D, Leblanc, E. Combined vaginal and laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of cervical cancer: a historic note. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2019;29:1228–1229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiva, L, Study, S. An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014. 21st Congress of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology, Athens, Greece, 2019.Google Scholar
Lin, F, Pan, L, Li, L, Li, D, Mo, L. Effects of a simulated CO2 pneumoperitoneum environment on the proliferation, apoptosis, and metastasis of cervical cancer cells in vitro. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res 2014;20:2497–2503.Google Scholar
Chao, X, Li, L, Wu, M, et al. Efficacy of different surgical approaches in the clinical and survival outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol of a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial in China. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029055.Google Scholar
Doll, KM, Donnelly, E, Helenowski, I, et al. Radical hysterectomy compared with primary radiation for treatment of stage IB1 cervix cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2014;37:30–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J, Yin, J, Yan, G, Huang, D, Wang, J. Postoperative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol 2016;36:641–648.Google Scholar
Escande, A, Gouy, S, Mazeron, R, et al. Outcome of early stage cervical cancer patients treated according to a radiosurgical approach: Clinical results and prognostic factors. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:541–546.Google Scholar
Vízkeleti, J, Vereczkey, I, Fröhlich, G, et al. Pathologic complete remission after preoperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy in patients with operable cervical cancer: preliminary results of a prospective randomized multicenter study. Pathol Oncol Res POR 2015;21:247–256.Google Scholar
Bentivegna, E, Maulard, A, Pautier, P, et al. Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1195–1211.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentivegna, E, Gouy, S, Maulard, A, et al. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:e240–e253.Google Scholar
Plante, M. Bulky early-stage cervical cancer (2–4 cm lesions): upfront radical trachelectomy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by fertility-preserving surgery: which is the best option? Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2015;25:722–728.Google Scholar
Fischerová, D, Cibula, D. The role of ultrasound in primary workup of cervical cancer staging (ESGO, ESTRO, ESP cervical cancer guidelines). Ceska Gynekol 2019;84:40–48.Google Scholar
Gouy, S, Morice, P, Narducci, F, et al. Nodal-staging surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of PET. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e212–e220.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, F, Cromi, A, Serati, M, et al. Radiation-induced bowel complications: laparoscopic versus open staging of gynecologic malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:782–791.Google Scholar
Lai, C-H, Huang, K-G, Hong, J-H, et al. Randomized trial of surgical staging (extraperitoneal or laparoscopic) versus clinical staging in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:160–167.Google Scholar
Green, J, Kirwan, J, Tierney, J, et al. Concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;3:CD002225.Google Scholar
Rose, PG, Java, JJ, Whitney, CW, et al. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix compared to squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix in gynecologic oncology group trials of cisplatin-based chemoradiation. Gynecol Oncol 2014;135:208–212.Google Scholar
Datta, NR, Stutz, E, Gomez, S, Bodis, S. Efficacy and safety evaluation of the various therapeutic options in locally advanced cervix cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.09.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, NR, Stutz, E, Liu, M, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in locally advanced cervix cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2017;145:374–385.Google Scholar
Keys, HM, Bundy, BN, Stehman, FB, et al. Radiation therapy with and without extrafascial hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma: a randomized trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:343–353.Google Scholar
Mazeron, R, Gouy, S, Chargari, C, et al. Post radiation hysterectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: outcomes and dosimetric impact. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2016;120:460–466.Google Scholar
Kumar, L, Gupta, S. Integrating chemotherapy in the management of cervical cancer: a critical appraisal. Oncology 2016;91(Suppl 1):8–17.Google Scholar
Kim, TH, Kim, M-H, Kim, B-J, et al. Prognostic importance of the site of recurrence in patients with metastatic recurrent cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;98:1124–1131.Google Scholar
Seamon, LG, Java, JJ, Monk, BJ, et al. Impact of tumour histology on survival in advanced cervical carcinoma: an NRG Oncology/Gynaecologic Oncology Group Study. Br J Cancer 2018;118:162–170.Google Scholar
Magrina, JF, Stanhope, CR, Weaver, AL. Pelvic exenterations: supralevator, infralevator, and with vulvectomy. Gynecol Oncol 1997;64:130–135.Google Scholar
Höckel, M. Long-term experience with (laterally) extended endopelvic resection (LEER) in relapsed pelvic malignancies. Curr Oncol Rep 2015;17:435.Google Scholar
Cordeiro, CN, Gemignani, ML. Gynecologic malignancies in pregnancy: balancing fetal risks with oncologic safety. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2017;72:184–193.Google Scholar
Hellström, A-C, Hellman, K, Pettersson, BF, Andersson, S. Carcinoma of the cervical stump: fifty years of experience. Oncol Rep 2011;25:1651–1654.Google Scholar
Narducci, F, Merlot, B, Bresson, L, et al. Occult invasive cervical cancer found after inadvertent simple hysterectomy: is the ideal management: systematic parametrectomy with or without radiotherapy or radiotherapy only? Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:1349–1352.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, H, Todo, Y, Takeshita, S, et al. Relationship between removal of circumflex iliac nodes distal to the external iliac nodes and postoperative lower-extremity lymphedema in uterine cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2015;139:295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magrina, JF, Goodrich, MA, Weaver, AL, Podratz, KC. Modified radical hysterectomy: morbidity and mortality. Gynecol Oncol 1995;59:277–282.Google Scholar
Espino-Strebel, EE, Luna, JTP, Domingo, EJ. A comparison of the feasibility and safety of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy with the conventional radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc 2010;20:1274–1283.Google Scholar
Kim, HS, Kim, M, Luo, Y, Lee, M, Song, YS, FUSION Study Group. Favorable factors for preserving bladder function after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: a protocol-based validation study. J Surg Oncol 2017;116:492–499.Google Scholar
Koh, V, Choo, BA, Lee, KM, et al. Feasibility study of toxicity outcomes using GEC-ESTRO contouring guidelines on CT based instead of MRI-based planning in locally advanced cervical cancer patients. Brachytherapy 2017;16:126–132.Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, CA, Sarris, K, Moulopoulos, LA, et al. Phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin in metastatic and recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999;17:761–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitagawa, R, Katsumata, N, Shibata, T, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized phase III trial JCOG0505. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 2015;33:2129–2135.Google Scholar
Tewari, KS, Sill, MW, Penson, RT, et al. Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240). Lancet Lond Engl 2017;390:1654–1663.Google Scholar
Matsuo, K, Machida, H, Mandelbaum, RS, Konishi, I, Mikami, M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staing system. Gynecol Oncol 2018;152:87–93.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×