Ioana Dicu-Andreescu

The Role of Lymph Node Downstaging Following Neoadjuvant Treatment in a Group of Patients with Advanced Stage Cervical Cancer

Background and Objectives: Cervical cancer is the fourth most frequent type of neoplasia in women. It is most commonly caused by the persistent infection with high-risk strands of human papillomavirus (hrHPV). Its incidence increases rapidly from age 25 when routine HPV screening starts and then decreases at the age of 45. This reflects both the diagnosis of prevalent cases at first-time screening and the likely peak of HPV exposure in early adulthood. For early stages, the treatment offers the possibility of fertility preservation.. However, in more advanced stages, the treatment is restricted to concomitant chemo-radiotherapy, combined, in very selected cases with surgical intervention. After the neoadjuvant treatment, an imagistic re-evaluation of the patients is carried out to analyze if the stage of the disease remained the same or suffered a downstaging. Lymph node downstaging following neoadjuvant treatment is regarded as an indubitable prognostic factor for predicting disease recurrence and survival in patients with advanced cervical cancer. This study aims to ascertain the important survival role of radiotherapy in the downstaging of the disease and of lymphadenectomy in the control of lymph node invasion for patients with advanced-stage cervical cancer. Material and Methods: We describe the outcome of patients with cervical cancer in stage IIIC1 FIGO treated at Bucharest Oncological Institute. All patients received radiotherapy and two-thirds received concomitant chemotherapy. A surgical intervention consisting of type C radical hysterectomy with radical pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed six to eight weeks after the end of the neoadjuvant treatment. Results: The McNemar test demonstrated the regression of lymphadenopathies after neoadjuvant treatment—p: <0.001. However, the persistence of adenopathies was not related to the dose of irradiation (p: 0.61), the number of sessions of radiotherapy (p: 0.80), or the chemotherapy (p: 0.44). Also, there were no significant differences between the adenopathies reported by imagistic methods and those identified during surgical intervention—p: 0.62. The overall survival evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves is dependent on the post-radiotherapy FIGO stage—p: 0.002 and on the lymph node status evaluated during surgical intervention—p: 0.04. The risk factors associated with an increased risk of death were represented by a low preoperative hemoglobin level (p: 0.003) and by the advanced FIGO stage determined during surgical intervention (p-value: 0.006 for stage IIIA and 0.01 for stage IIIC1). In the multivariate Cox model, the independent predictor of survival was the preoperative hemoglobin level (p: 0.004, HR 0.535, CI: 0.347 to 0.823). Out of a total of 33 patients with neoadjuvant treatment, 22 survived until the end of the study, all 33 responded to the treatment in varying degrees, but in 3 of them, tumor cells were found in the lymph nodes during the intraoperative histopathological examination. Conclusions: For advanced cervical cancer patients, radical surgery after neoadjuvant treatment may be associated with a better survival rate. Further research is needed to identify all the causes that lead to the persistence of adenopathies in certain patients, to decrease the FIGO stage after surgical intervention, and, therefore, to lower the risk of death. Also, it is mandatory to correctly evaluate and treat the anemia, as it seems to be an independent predictor factor for mortality.

The Impact of Patient Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Surgical Intervention on Survival in a Cohort of Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Treatment for Cervical Cancer

Introduction: Cervical cancer is among the most frequent types of neoplasia worldwide and remains the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women, a fact that raises the necessity for further development of therapeutic strategies. NCCN guidelines recommend radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy as the gold standard for locally advanced cervical cancer. Also, some studies claim that performing surgery after chemo-radiation therapy does not necessarily improve the therapeutic outcome. This study aims to determine the impact of the risk factors, various characteristics, and surgical treatment for patients in different stages of the disease on survival rate. Material and methods: Our study started as a retrospective, observational, unicentric one, carried out on a cohort of 96 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer from the surgical department of the Bucharest Oncological Institute, followed from 1 January 2019 for a period of 3 years. After the registration of the initial parameters, however, the study became prospective, as the patients were closely monitored through periodical check-ups. The end-point of the study is either the death of the participants or reaching the end of the follow-up period, and, therefore, we divided the cohort into two subgroups: the ones who survived after three years and the ones who did not. All 96 patients, with disease stages ranging from IA2 to IIIB, underwent radio-chemotherapy followed by adjuvant surgery. Results: Among the 96 patients, 45 (46%) presented residual tumor after radio-chemotherapy. Five patients (5%) presented positive resection margins at the post-operative histopathological examination. The presence of residual tumor, the FIGO stage post-radiotherapy, positive resection margins, and lympho-vascular and stromal invasions differed significantly between the subgroups, being more represented in the subgroup that reached the end-point. Variables correlated with the worst survival in Kaplan–Meier were the pelvic lymph node involvement—50% at three years (p—0.015)—and the positive resection margins—only 20% at three years (p < 0.001). The univariate Cox model identified as mortality-associated risk factors the same parameters as above, but also the intraoperative stage III FIGO (p < 0.001; HR 9.412; CI: 2.713 to 32.648) and the presence of post-radiotherapy adenopathy (p—0.031; HR: 3.915; CI: 1.136 to 13.487) identified through imagistic methods. The independent predictors of the overall survival rate identified were the positive resection margins (p—0.002; HR: 6.646; CI 2.0 to 22.084) and the post-radiotherapy stage III FIGO (p—0.003; HR: 13.886; CI: 2.456 to 78.506). Conclusions: The most important predictor factors of survival rate are the positive resection margins and the FIGO stage after radiotherapy. According to the NCCN guidelines in stages considered advanced (beyond stages IB3, IIA2), the standard treatment is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In our study, with radical surgery after neoadjuvant therapy, 46% of patients presented residual tumor at the intraoperative histopathological examination, a fact that makes the surgical intervention an important step in completing the treatment of these patients. In addition, based on the patient’s features/comorbidities and the clinical response to chemotherapy/radiotherapy, surgeons could carefully tailor the extent of radical surgery, thus resulting in a personalized surgical approach for each patient. However, a potential limitation can be represented by the relatively small number of patients (96) and the unicentric nature of our study.