Morbidity of radical hysterectomy combined with caesarean section in pregnant patients with cervical cancer

Objectives: In pregnant patients with early stage cervical cancer, the preferred mode of delivery is a caesarean section (CS), which can be combined with a radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHLD). The aim of this study was to compare this group of patients with non-pregnant cervical cancer patients treated by RHLD alone with regard to perioperative morbidity, oncological outcomes, and perinatal outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients diagnosed with early stage cervical cancer during pregnancy who were treated by CS and RHLD at our institution. Non-pregnant counterparts served as controls and were matched on a 1 : 2 ratio. Key outcomes were perioperative complications, cancer outcome and perinatal outcome. Results: Nineteen pregnant women treated with a CS and RHLD were matched with 38 non-pregnant control patients with cervical cancer who underwent a RHLD. The only difference in morbidity was a higher estimated perioperative blood loss in the pregnant group (1600 mL) compared to the control group (800 mL; P = 0.001), resulting in seven (36.8%) and eight (21.1%) blood transfusions (P = 0.22; OR 2.19; 95% CI 0.65 to 7.38), respectively. Conclusion: Oncological outcomes were similar with 5-year overall survival rates of 94% in the pregnant group and 95% in the non-pregnant group. The neonatal survival rate was 100%. Complication rates and oncological outcomes after treatment with RHLD were comparable for pregnant and non-pregnant patients with early stage cervical cancer. Therefore we feel that it is safe to combine a CS with a RHLD in pregnant patients with early stage cervical cancer.

Uterine cervical cancer; Postoperative complications; Caesarean section; Radical hysterectomy; Pregnancy; Survival; Perinatal mortality

[1] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 394–424.

[2] Nguyen C, Montz FJ, Bristow RE. Management of stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2000; 55: 633–643.

[3] CBS. Women continue to postpone motherhood. 2018. Available at: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/05/women-conti nue-to-postpone-motherhood (Accessed: 19 May 2020).

[4] Amant F, Halaska MJ, Fumagalli M, Dahl Steffensen K, Lok C, Van Calsteren K, et al. Gynecologic cancers in pregnancy: guidelines of a second international consensus meeting. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2014; 24: 394–403.

[5] Baloglu A, Uysal D, Aslan N, Yigit S. Advanced stage of cervical carcinoma undiagnosed during antenatal period in term pregnancy and concomitant metastasis on episiotomy scar during delivery: a case report and review of the literature. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2007; 17: 1155–1159.

[6] Thaler I, Manor D, Itskovitz J, Rottem S, Levit N, Timor-Tritsch I, et al. Changes in uterine blood flow during human pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1990; 162: 121–125.

[7] Matsuo K, Mandelbaum RS, Matsuzaki S, Licon E, Roman LD, Klar M, et al. Cesarean radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States: a national study of surgical outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 222: 507–511.e2.

[8] van der Velden J, Mom CH, van Lonkhuijzen L, Tjiong MY, Westerveld H, Fons G. Analysis of isolated loco-regional recurrence rate in intermediate risk early cervical cancer after a type C2 radical hysterectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2019; 29: 874–878.

[9] Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019; 145: 129–135.

[10] Corrigendum to “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri” [Int J Gynecol Obstet 145 (2019) 129–135]. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2019; 147; 279–280.

[11] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P. Classification of surgical complications. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 240: 205–213.

[12] Hoftiezer L, Hof MHP, Dijs-Elsinga J, Hogeveen M, Hukkelhoven CWPM, van Lingen RA. From population reference to national standard: new and improved birthweight charts. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 220: 383.e1–383.e17.

[13] Fruscio R, Villa A, Chiari S, Vergani P, Ceppi L, Dell’Orto F, et al. Delivery delay with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for cervical cancer patients during pregnancy: a series of nine cases and literature review. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 126: 192–197.

[14] Monk BJ, Montz FJ. Invasive cervical cancer complicating intrauterine pregnancy: treatment with radical hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1992; 80: 199–203.

[15] Sood AK, Sorosky JI, Krogman S, Anderson B, Benda J, Buller RE. Surgical management of cervical cancer complicating pregnancy: a case-control study. Gynecologic Oncology. 1996; 63: 294–298.

[16] Bigelow CA, Horowitz NS, Goodman A, Growdon WB, Del Carmen M, Kaimal AJ. Management and outcome of cervical cancer diagnosed in pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 216: 276.e1–276.e6.

[17] Lee J, Lee K, Kim Y, Ryu H, Kim Y, Cho C, et al. Cervical cancer associated with pregnancy: results of a multicenter retrospective Korean study (KGOG-1006). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008; 198: 92.e1–92.e6.

[18] Dawood R, Instone M, Kehoe S. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for cervical cancer in pregnancy: a case report and literature review. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2013; 171: 205–208.

[19] Chung EH, Chou J, Brown KA. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants: a recent literature review. Translational Pediatrics. 2020; 9: S3–S8.