Efficacy and safety of cervical conization combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer treatment

This study evaluates the impact of cervical conization combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus radical trachelectomy on treatment outcomes and patient safety in early-stage cervical cancer. Clinical data of 100 patients with early-stage cervical cancer treated at The First Hospital of Yulin City between January 2021 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different treatment methods, patients were divided into two groups: an experimental group (50 cases) receiving cervical conization (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, LEEP) combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and a control group (50 cases) undergoing radical trachelectomy. Efficacy and safety were compared between the two surgical approaches. The overall efficacy rate was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (p = 0.046). Additionally, the experimental group exhibited shorter surgical time, reduced hospitalization duration, and quicker return to first flatus compared to the control group (p < 0.001). The difference in postoperative complications rates between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Recurrence rates at six months and one year post-surgery did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). However, after three years, the experimental group had a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The combination of LEEP with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage cervical cancer demonstrates superior therapeutic efficacy, shorter surgical duration, and lower long-term recurrence rates compared to radical trachelectomy. This approach extends patient survival with a favorable safety profile, supporting its clinical adoption.

Cervical conization surgery; Radical trachelectomy surgery; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

[1] Xi C, Shen JJ, Burston B, Upadhyay S, Zhou S. Epidemiological/disease and economic burdens of cervical cancer in 2010–2014: are younger women at risk? Healthcare. 2023; 11: 144.

[2] Chen X, Lu D, Mu Y, Kong L, Zhang L. The clinical significance of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer. BMC Women’s Health. 2024; 24: 1.

[3] Wang G, Wang J, Momeni MR. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate and its nanoformulation in cervical cancer therapy: the role of genes, MicroRNA and DNA methylation patterns. Cancer Cell International. 2023; 23: 335.

[4] Cho O. Post-radiotherapy exosomal non-coding RNA and hemograms for early death prediction in patients with cervical cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 25: 126.

[5] Ha HJ, Bitnarae K. Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2024; 35: e9.

[6] Rocha Martins P, Luciano Pereira Morais K, de Lima Galdino NA, Jacauna A, Paula SOC, Magalhães WCS, et al. Linking tumor immune infiltrate and systemic immune mediators to treatment response and prognosis in advanced cervical cancer. Scientific Reports. 2023; 13: 22634.

[7] Friday O, Lindsay E, Maradona I. Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer prevention in Africa. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2023; 27: 9–14.

[8] Laura D, Caleb D. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for cervical cancer, timing of surgery for esophageal cancer, endometrial cancer molecular classification, vestibular schwannoma, and breast boost techniques. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2024; 14: 1–5.

[9] Dicu-Andreescu IG, Marincaș MA, Prunoiu VM, Dicu-Andreescu I, Ionescu SO, Simionescu AA, et al. The impact of patient characteristics, risk factors, and surgical intervention on survival in a cohort of patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for cervical cancer. Medicina. 2023; 59: 2147.

[10] Kostov S, Sorokin P, Rezende B, Yalçın H, Selçuk I. Radical hysterectomy or total mesometrial resection—two anatomical concepts for surgical treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancers. 2023; 15: 5295.

[11] Matsuo K, Violette CJ, Mandelbaum RS, Shoupe D, Roman LD. Utilizations and characteristics of ovarian conservation at hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma in situ. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2022; 161: 631–639.

[12] Lv Z, Wang YY, Wang YW, He JJ, Lan WW, Peng JY, et al. A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2023; 23: 727.

[13] Giacomo C, Pedone AL, Simone B, Isabella S, Camilla C, Benito C, et al. Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1–IB2 cervical cancer: comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2023; 49: 107047.

[14] Yuki I, Shinya S, Masayo O, Kohei H, Hiroaki K, Akiko K, et al. Prognostic value of human papillomavirus genotyping before and after cervical conization for squamous intraepithelial lesion. Acta Cytologica. 2022; 67: 17–26.

[15] Mayuko Y, Takeshi M, Yutaka I, Shingo T, Hironori T, Eiji K, et al. Fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a case series study on the efficacy and feasibility of cervical conization followed by pelvic lymphadenectomy. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; 48: 1444–1450.

[16] Kitamura N, Kamamoto M, Ikoma T, Takeda D, Suzuki T, Sato T, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable oral squamous cell carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology. 2024; 36: 266–272.

[17] Sakura Y, Yamashita R, Notsu A, Usui K, Shinsaka H, Nakamura M, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who undergo radical cystectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective cohort study of 115 advanced bladder cancer patients with pathological lymph node classification. International Journal of Urology. 2024; 31: 785–792.