Article Text

Download PDFPDF

991 Fertility sparing surgery in cervical cancer patients outside controlled trials – a multicenter retrospective cohort trial (CEEGOG Cx-03; ENGOT-CX14)
  1. J Sláma1,
  2. S Kommoss2,
  3. G Scambia3,
  4. G Ferron4,
  5. Z Novák5,
  6. I Runnebaum6,
  7. A Fagotti3,
  8. F Narducci7,
  9. O Matylevich8,
  10. J Holly9,
  11. F Raspagliesi10,
  12. AS Bats11,
  13. V Kopetskyi12,
  14. A El-Balat13,
  15. G Corrado3,
  16. F Anas14,
  17. N Volodko15,
  18. T Piatnytska16,
  19. L Fricová1 and
  20. D Cibula1
  1. 1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CEEGOG, Prague, Czech Republic
  2. 2Tüebingen University Hospital, Department of Women’s Health, AGO Study Group, Tüebingen, Germany
  3. 3Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Rome, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, MITO, Rome, Italy
  4. 4Claudius Regaud Institute – University Cancer Institute, Department of Gynecological Oncology, GINECO, Toulouse, France
  5. 5Hungarian National Institute of Oncology, Department of Gynecology, CEEGOG, Budapest, Hungary
  6. 6Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, AGO Study Group, Jena, Germany
  7. 7Centre Oscar Lambret, Department of Gynecological Oncology, GINECO, Lille, France
  8. 8N.N. Alexandrov National Cancer Centre of Belarus, Gynecologic Oncology Department, CEEGOG, Minsk, Belarus
  9. 9Evangelical Clinic Essen Mitte, Department of Gynecological Oncology, AGO Study Group, Essen, Germany
  10. 10Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori – Milan, Department of Gynecological Oncology, MITO, Milan, Italy
  11. 11European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Gynaecological Oncological and Breast Surgery, GINECO, Paris, France
  12. 12National Cancer Institute, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, CEEGOG, Kyev, Ukraine
  13. 13University Clinic Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, AGO Study Group, Frankfurt am Main , Germany
  14. 14University of Medicine and Pharmacy Târgu Mureş, First Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, CEEGOG, Târgu Mureş, Romania
  15. 15Danylo Halytsky Lviv national medical university , Lviv Regional Oncological Center, CEEGOG, Lviv, Ukraine
  16. 16Khmelnytskyi Regional Oncological Dispensary, Regional Oncological Dispensary, CEEGOG, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine


Introduction/Background*According to current guidelines fertility-sparing treatment (FST) in cervical cancer patients should follow the same principles as in patients without fertility preservation. The literature from the last years, however, show a trend towards less-radical procedures. Although oncological outcomes are reported to be equal or better than in non-FST, published groups are small, mostly single institutional, inclusion criteria vary, and treatment is not uniform. The aim of this study was to collect retrospective data from multiple institutions across several countries on oncological and reproductive outcomes after FST.

Methodology Included were cervical cancer patients between 18–40 years with stages ≥ IA1+LVSI, who underwent any type of FST and completed follow-up of at least 6 months. Patients were eligible irrespective of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histotype or tumour grade.

Result(s)*Altogether 733 patients from 44 centers in 13 countries were eligible for analyses. Median follow-up of the whole cohort was 6 years (1.2–14.5). More than half of the cases had stage IB1 (54.2%; 397/733). Mean age of patients was 32 years and two thirds were nulliparous (484/733). Most common surgical procedure was conization (48%). Repeated cervical surgery was performed in 161 patients (21.9%), most frequently re-conization (57.8%). Less than half of the patients (49.2%; 361/733) attempted to conceive after treatment. Out of them, 138 (38.2%) got pregnant and 100 (27.7%) successfully delivered. Pre-cancer recurrence was diagnosed in 22 (3%) patients, 51 (7%) patients had cancer recurrence and 19 (2.6%) died of disease. Three times higher risk of recurrence was observed in tumours ≥ 2 cm in comparison to smaller tumours (19.4% vs. 5.7%; p<0.001). The most frequent locations of recurrence were cervix (53%) and pelvic nodes (22%). Median DFI for invasive recurrence reached 18 months.

Abstract 991 Table 1

Characteristics of cohort

Abstract 991 Table 2

Risk o recurrence (One-dimension logistic regression model)

Conclusion*Data from the real life practice showed that FST in cervical cancer patients is safe in patients with HPV related tumours smaller than 2 cm. In such tumours conization represents sufficient procedure with satisfactory pregnancy outcomes. Surprisingly less than half of patients attempt to conceive after treatment.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.