Indications for primary and secondary exenterations in patients with cervical cancer
Introduction
In 1948, Brunschwig published the first case series of 22 patients who underwent pelvic exenterations; the perioperative mortality rate was 23%. The indications for this innovative radical approach were advanced cancer in the pelvis associated with pain, fistulas or infection in patients, who did not respond to radiotherapy [3]. A number of case series published since that time focus either on aspects of surgical technique or on indications. During the last 50 years, valid concepts have been developed for the two major surgical challenges of exenterative surgery — management of the empty pelvis and deviation of feces and urine [2], [17], [19], [21], [36]. Combining antibiotic therapy, intensive care monitoring and thromboembolic prophylaxis reduced the perioperative mortality to 2–14% [1], [4], [5], [6], [13], [14], [16], [17], [21], [23], [26], [30], [31], [34], [41], [42], [44], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [53] and increased the 5-year survival rate to 20–60% [1], [4], [5], [10], [11], [13], [14], [16], [23], [25], [26], [30], [31], [34], [42], [44], [46], [48], [49], [50], [51], [53] with a good quality of life [6], [15], [43], [47]. Recently, even laparoscopic and laparoscopic assisted exenteration procedures have been described [27], [40].
The spectrum of indications for exenteration has also changed over the years. Primary exenteration is only performed in patients with tumor- or treatment-associated urogenital or genitointestinal fistulas, though this restrictive approach is not justified by data [13], [25], [43], [51], [53]. This is surprising since very little data are available on primary chemoradiation in patients with stage IVA: only 50 patients (3–20% of patients in randomized trials) have been treated and their survival data are not separately analyzed [18], [35], [39], [52], [57]. Indication criteria for secondary exenteration vary considerably: intraperitoneal tumor spread and distant metastases regarded as the only exclusion criteria by some authors [11], [48]. Others consider exenteration to be contraindicated in the presence of positive lymph nodes, a large tumor size, tumor infiltration of the pelvic side wall and clinical symptoms such as lymphedema of the leg, obstructive uropathy or sciatic nerve pain [4], [10], [13], [14], [16], [20], [23], [25], [30], [42], [46], [47], [49], [53]. Barber describes a number of tumor-associated medical and psychosocial prerequisites for performing secondary exenteration [1]. Moreover, the indication criteria for “palliative exenteration” have not yet been defined [51].
A number of retrospective studies compare the mortality, complication rate and oncologic outcome in patients following exenteration. The results of these studies are difficult to compare due to the inhomogeneous patient groups with gynecologic and non-gynecologic malignancies [3], [4], [11], [12], [13], [16], [17], [19], [21], [26], [30], [31], [34], [36], [38], [41], [42], [44], [46], [48], [50], [51], [53]. Only 5 series analyze exclusively patients with cervical cancer [10], [14], [20], [23], [49].
Indications for primary and secondary and for curative or palliative exenteration will be discussed on the basis of exenteration results obtained in cervical cancer patients in the Department of Gynecology at the University of Jena.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Between February 1998 and June 2004, fifty-five patients with histologically confirmed cervical cancer underwent pelvic exenteration in the Department of Gynecology at the Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Germany. Twenty primary and thirty-five secondary exenterations were performed.
All patients underwent preoperative imaging to exclude distant metastases. In addition, all patients had a pelvic MRI and an abdominal CT in order to evaluate operability. Prior to exenteration, the data of
Results
The median age of the 55 patients was 49.8 years (28–74). Thirty-five patients were treated for recurrent or persistent carcinoma, while twenty had a primary exenteration (Table 1). Histological examination identified 51 squamous cell carcinomas and 4 adenocarcinomas. Histopathological examination of operative specimens showed that margins were negative in 42 and positive in 13. There were nineteen patients with positive lymph nodes and thirteen with more than one positive node. Lymph nodes
Discussion
Exenterations are major surgery with an operating time of 5 to 14 h [4], [14], [16], [23], [31], [34], [38], [48], a mean blood loss of 2300 to 4000 cm3 [4], [14], [16], [31], [34], [38], [41], [48], [50] and a mean hospital stay of 19 to 37 days [4], [14], [31], [34], [41], [42], [48], [51]. The quality of life of patients following exenteration may be comparable to that of healthy women, but they tend to have more physical, sexual and social problems and a worse body image [15], [43]. Despite
Acknowledgment
We thank Marc Possover M.D., for support with his surgical skills.
References (57)
Relative prognostic significance of preoperative and operative findings in pelvic exenteration
Surg. Clin. North Am.
(1969)Bladder substitution after pelvic evisceration
Surg. Clin. North Am.
(1950)- et al.
Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynaecologic malignancy: survival and morbidity analysis of the 45-year experience at UCLA
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2005) - et al.
Pelvic exenteration for adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix
Gynecol. Oncol.
(1995) - et al.
A phase I study of ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in advanced and recurrent cervical cancer
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2004) - et al.
Radical surgical resection and high-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (HDR-IORT) in patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
(2001) - et al.
Anterior pelvic exenteration
Gynecol. Oncol.
(1988) - et al.
The impact of treatment for genital cancer on quality of live and body image—Results of a prospective longitudinal 10-year study
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2004) Laterally extended endopelvic resection—Novel surgical treatment of locally recurrent cervical carcinoma involving the pelvic side wall
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2003)- et al.
Major complications of urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies: a 23-year mono-institutional experience in 124 patients
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2004)
Hydroxyurea or placebo combined with radiation to treat stages IIIB and IV cervical cancer confined to the pelvis
Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
Continent urinary diversion and low-rectal anastomosis in patients undergoing exenterative procedures for recurrent gynecologic malignancies
Gynecol. Oncol.
Pelvic exenteration for advanced carcinoma of the cervix
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Long-term follow up of continent urinary diversion after pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies
Gynecol. Oncol.
Clinical aspects and prognosis of pelvic recurrence of cervical carcinoma
Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet.
Explorative laparoscopy prior to exenterative surgery
Gynecol. Oncol.
Pelvic exenteration of gynecologic malignancy: indications, and technical and reconstructive considerations
Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am.
Pelvic exenteration for recurrent or persistent gynaecologic malignancies: a 10-year review of the Memorial-Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience (1972–1981)
Gynecol. Oncol.
Pelvic exenterations: supralevator, infralevator, and with vulvectomy
Gynecol. Oncol.
Stage IV carcinoma of the cervix with bladder invasion
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Colorectal function preservation in posterior ant total supralevator exenteration for gynaecologic malignancies: an 89-patient series
Gynecol. Oncol.
Combination chemotherapy of docetaxel and carboplatin in advanced or recurrent cervix cancer. A pilot study
Gynecol. Oncol.
Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer relapse
Gynecol. Oncol.
Quality of live after pelvic exenteration
Gynecol. Oncol.
Prolonged oral etoposide in recurrent non-squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study
Gynecol. Oncol.
Pelvic exenteration: analysis of 296 patients
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Pelvic exenteration: by whom and for whom?
Lancet
Pelvic exenteration: factors associated with major surgical morbidity
Gynecol. Oncol.
Cited by (122)
Laterally extended endopelvic resection for gynecological malignancies, a comparison between laparoscopic and laparotomic approach
2023, European Journal of Surgical OncologyThe impact of distance to closest negative margin on survival after pelvic exenteration
2022, Gynecologic OncologyExtended pelvic resection for gynecological malignancies: A review of out-of-the-box surgery
2022, Gynecologic OncologyCitation Excerpt :The subject is widely debated in PE series, and some authors reported a better prognosis with a long disease-free interval. In Marnitz's series in which 35 patients received PE for cervical cancer recurrence, the 5-year survival rates with a recurrence up to 2 years, between 2 and 5 years, and more than 5 years were 17%, 28%, and 83%, respectively [33]. Very early tumor progression within one year of the initial treatment indicates an aggressive disease and carries an extremely unfavorable prognosis.