Article Text

Download PDFPDF

#461 Patient reported outcomes from CCTG CX.5 (SHAPE): randomized trial comparing radical hysterectomy (RH) and pelvic node dissection (PND) vs simple hysterectomy (SH) and PND in women with low-risk early-stage
  1. Sarah Ferguson1,
  2. Marie Plante2,
  3. Donsheng Tu3,
  4. Janice Kwon4,
  5. Vanessa Samouelian5,
  6. Gwenael Ferron6,
  7. Amandine Maulard7,
  8. Cor De Kroon8,
  9. Willemien Van Driel9,
  10. John Tidy10,
  11. Karin Williamson11,
  12. Sven Mahner12,
  13. Stefan Kommos13,
  14. Frederic Goffin14,
  15. Karl Tamussino15,
  16. Brynhildur Eyjolfsdottir16,
  17. Jae-Weon Kim17,
  18. Noreen Gleeson18,
  19. Lois Shepherd3 and
  20. Lori Brotto4
  1. 1Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  2. 2Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
  4. 4University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  5. 5Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada
  6. 6Institut Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France
  7. 7Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Ville-Juif, France
  8. 8Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands Antilles
  9. 9Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands Antilles
  10. 10Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  11. 11Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
  12. 12LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
  13. 13Tuebingen University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany
  14. 14CHU de Liege, Liege, Belgium
  15. 15Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  16. 16Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  17. 17Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
  18. 18St James’ Hospital, Dublin, Ireland


Introduction/Background CX.5 (SHAPE) is a Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) led Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup international randomized phase III randomized non-inferiority trial comparing RH to SH in women with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer. The primary endpoint was pelvic recurrence rate at 3 years. Quality of Life (QoL) and Sexual Health are important survivorship issues for women undergoing this surgery and Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) were important secondary endpoints in this trial.

Methodology PROs included QoL measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 with QLQ-CX24 and sexual health assessment (SHA) by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and the Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R). These were measured at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after the surgery. Change scores from baseline were calculated and analyzed by linear mixed models.

Results Among 700 patients randomized, 508 (73% of expected) and 432 (86% of expected) completed respectively baseline QOL and SHA. Compliance post-baseline was 56% to 69% for QOL and 63% to 79% for SHA with 58% of patients reporting QoL and 63% responding to the SHA at 36 months. Mean baseline scores were high for all EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scales. EORTC symptoms with the highest (worst) mean baseline scores were fatigue (24.5 on SH and 24.1 on RH) and sleep (29.9 on SH and 32.0 on RH). Mean baseline FSFI and FSDS-R total scores were respectively 27.1 and 10.9 on SH and 27.6 and 10.1 on RH; all were in the non-clinical range.. Significant differences in favor of treatment with SH was found for the following domains: EORTC QLQ-C30 pain scale; EORTC QLQ-CX24 symptom experiences, body image, sexual-vaginal functioning, and sexual worry, sexual activities, and sexual enjoyment scales; FSFI desire, arousal, lubrication, pain scales and total score; and FSDS-R total score.

Conclusion Better quality of life and sexual health were observed with SH compared to RH.

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.