Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMJ Clinical Evidence logoLink to BMJ Clinical Evidence
. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Cervical cancer

Pierre Leonard Martin-Hirsch 1,#, Nicholas James Wood 2,#
PMCID: PMC3217784  PMID: 21791123

Abstract

Introduction

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women. In the UK, incidence fell after the introduction of the cervical screening programme, to the current level of approximately 2334 women in 2008, with a mortality to incidence ratio of 0.33. Survival ranges from almost 100% 5-year disease-free survival for treated stage Ia disease to 5–15% in stage IV disease. Survival is also influenced by tumour bulk, age, and comorbid conditions.

Methods and outcomes

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent cervical cancer? What are the effects of interventions to manage early-stage cervical cancer? What are the effects of interventions to manage bulky early-stage cervical cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Results

We found 14 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

Conclusions

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for preventing cervical cancer; conisation of the cervix for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1), conisation of the cervix plus lymphadenectomy (stage Ia2 and low-volume, good prognostic factor stage Ib), radical trachelectomy for low-volume stage Ib disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, or different types of hysterectomy versus each other for treating early-stage and bulky early-stage cervical cancer.

Key Points

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women.

  • In the UK, incidence fell after the introduction of the cervical screening programme to the current level of approximately 2334 women in 2008, with a mortality to incidence ratio of 0.33.

  • About 80% of tumours are squamous type, and staging is based on the FIGO classification.

  • Survival ranges from almost 100% 5-year disease-free survival for treated stage Ia disease to 5–15% in stage IV disease. Survival is also influenced by tumour bulk, age, and comorbid conditions.

  • Development of cervical cancer is strongly associated with HPV infection, acquired mainly by sexual intercourse.

  • The peak prevalence of HPV infection is 20–40% in women aged 20 to 30 years, but in 80% of cases the infection resolves within 12 to 18 months.

  • Other risk factors for cervical cancer include early onset of sexual activity, multiple sexual partners, long-term use of oral contraceptives, tobacco smoking, low socioeconomic status, and immunosuppressive therapy.

Vaccination against HPV is effective in preventing certain types of oncogenic HPV infection, and at reducing rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, but there has been insufficient long-term follow-up to assess effects on cervical cancer rates.

Conisation with adequate excision margins is considered effective for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1), and can preserve fertility, unlike simple hysterectomy; however, it has been associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight.

  • Conisation is often performed for stage Ia1 disease, but evidence for its benefit is from observational studies only.

We don’t know how conisation of the cervix with pelvic lymphadenectomy and simple or radical hysterectomy compare with each other for stage Ia2 and low volume stage 1b cervical cancer, as we found no RCTs.

We don’t know how simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy and radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy compare with each other, in early cervical cancer, as we found no RCT evidence.

Limited observational evidence shows that radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy results in similar disease-free survival as radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer; however, we found no RCTs.

  • Radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy can preserve fertility.

Limited RCT evidence shows that radiotherapy is as effective as surgery in early-stage disease.

  • Overall and disease-free survival are similar after radiotherapy or radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy, but radiotherapy is less likely to cause severe adverse effects.

Chemoradiotherapy improves survival compared with radiotherapy in women with bulky early-stage cervical cancer.

  • Combined chemoradiotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival when used either before or after hysterectomy, but is associated with more haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with radiotherapy alone.

The benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery compared with radiotherapy alone are unknown.

Clinical context

About this condition

Definition

Cervical cancer is a malignant neoplasm arising from the uterine cervix. About 80% of cervical cancers are of the squamous type; the remainder are adenocarcinomas, adenosquamous carcinomas, and other rare types.[1] Staging of cervical cancer is based on clinical evaluation (FIGO classification;[2] see table 1 ). Management is determined by tumour bulk and stage. Population: This review deals with treatments for early-stage cancer (defined as FIGO stage Ia1, Ia2, Ib1, and small IIa tumours) and bulky early-stage disease (defined as FIGO stage Ib2 and larger IIa tumours).

Table 1.

FIGO staging of cervical cancer[2]

Stage I The carcinoma is strictly confined to the cervix (extension to the corpus would be disregarded)
Stage Ia Invasive carcinoma that can be diagnosed only by microscopy, with deepest invasion 5 mm or less and largest extension not >7 mm
•  Stage Ia1 Measured stromal invasion of 3.0 mm or less in depth and extension of 7.0 mm or less
•  Stage Ia2 Measured stromal invasion of >3.0 mm and not >5.0 mm with an extension of not >7.0 mm
Stage Ib Clinically visible lesions limited to the cervix uteri or pre-clinical cancers greater than stage Ia*
•  Stage Ib1 Clinically visible lesion 4.0 cm or less in greatest dimension
•  Stage Ib2 Clinically visible lesion >4.0 cm in greatest dimension
Stage II Cervical carcinoma invades beyond the uterus, but not to the pelvic wall or to the lower third of the vagina
Stage IIa Without parametrial invasion
•  Stage IIa1 Clinically visible lesion 4.0 cm or less in greatest dimension
•  Stage IIa2 Clinically visible lesion >4 cm in greatest dimension
Stage IIb With obvious parametrial invasion
Stage III The tumour extends to the pelvic wall and/or involves lower third of the vagina and/or causes hydronephrosis or non-functioning kidney†
Stage IIIa Tumour involves lower third of the vagina, with no extension to the pelvic wall
Stage IIIb Extension to the pelvic wall and/or hydronephrosis or non-functioning kidney
Stage IV The carcinoma has extended beyond the true pelvis, or has involved (biopsy-proven) the mucosa of the bladder or rectum. A bullous oedema, as such, does not permit a case to be allotted to stage IV
Stage IVa Spread of the growth to adjacent organs
Stage IVb Spread to distant organs
* All macroscopically visible lesions — even with superficial invasion — are allotted to stage Ib carcinomas. Invasion is limited to a measured stromal invasion with a maximal depth of 5.00 mm and a horizontal extension of not >7.00 mm. Depth of invasion should not be >5.00 mm taken from the base of the epithelium of the original tissue — superficial or glandular. The depth of invasion should always be reported in millimetres, even in those cases with 'early (minimal) stromal invasion' (~1 mm). The involvement of vascular/lymphatic spaces should not change the stage allotment. †On rectal examination, there is no cancer-free space between the tumour and the pelvic wall. All cases with hydronephrosis or non-functioning kidney are included, unless they are known to be due to another cause.
Open in a new tab

Incidence/ Prevalence

Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women, with about 529,000 new cases diagnosed worldwide in 2008. Most (85%) cases occur in resource-poor countries that have no effective screening programmes.[3] The incidence of cervical cancer in the UK and Europe has greatly reduced since the introduction of a screening programme for detecting precancerous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cervical cancer incidence fell by 42% between 1988 and 1997 in England and Wales. This fall has been reported to be related to the cervical screening programme.[4] In England, cervical cancer had an annual incidence of 2334 women in 2008, with a mortality to incidence ratio of 0.33.[5]

Aetiology/ Risk factors

Risk factors for cervical cancer include sexual intercourse at an early age, multiple sexual partners, tobacco smoking, long-term oral contraceptive use, low socioeconomic status, immunosuppressive therapy, and micronutrient deficiency. Persistent infection by oncogenic, high-risk strains of HPV is strongly associated with the development of cervical cancer.[6] [7] HPV strains 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancer and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.[7] The virus is acquired mainly by sexual intercourse, and has a peak prevalence of 20% to 40% in women aged 20 to 30 years, although in 80% of cases the infection is transient and resolves within 12 to 18 months.[8] [9] Women with persistent oncogenic HPV are at risk of developing high-grade pre-cancer and ultimately cervical cancer.

Prognosis

Overall, 5-year disease-free survival is 50% to 70% for stages Ib2 and IIb, 30% to 50% for stage III, and 5% to 15% for stage IV.[1] In women who receive treatment, 5-year survival in stage Ia approaches 100%, falling to 70% to 85% for stage Ib1 and smaller IIa tumours. Survival in women with more locally advanced tumours is influenced by tumour bulk, the person's age, and coexistent medical conditions. Mortality in untreated locally advanced disease is high.

Aims of intervention

To reduce morbidity and mortality; to improve quality of life with minimal adverse effects.

Outcomes

For question on prevention of cervical cancer: vaccine immunogenicity: seroconversion rates, rates of HPV, rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, rates of cervical cancer. For questions on management of early-stage cervical cancer and bulky early-stage cervical cancer: mortality: overall survival, progression-free survival; recurrence: local recurrence, distant recurrence; quality of life; and adverse effects of treatment. Some treatments — including "fertility-preserving treatments" — may affect fertility. We therefore examined the effects of treatment on pregnancy rates and live-birth rate. Adverse effects of chemotherapy are usually graded according to severity, using scales such as the Chassagne morbidity scale (grades 0–3), National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity scale (grades 0–4), and the Southwest Oncology Group scale (grades 0–5); unless otherwise stated, grade 0 refers to no adverse effects, and higher scores indicate a greater severity of adverse effects.

Methods

Clinical Evidence search and appraisal October 2009. The following databases were used to identify studies for this systematic review: Medline 1966 to October 2009, Embase 1980 to October 2009, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials 2009, Issue 4 (1966 to date of issue). An additional search was carried out of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) — for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). We also searched for retractions of studies included in the review. Abstracts of the studies retrieved from the initial search were assessed by an information specialist. Selected studies were then sent to the contributor for additional assessment, using predetermined criteria to identify relevant studies. Study design criteria for inclusion in this review were: published systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs in any language, including open studies because comparisons between radiotherapy and chemotherapy would be difficult to blind for, and containing >20 individuals of whom >80% were followed up. There was no minimum length of follow-up required to include studies. For the early-stage disease question, we included RCTs that included solely women with stage Ia1, Ia2, Ib1, and small IIa tumours. For the bulky early-stage disease question, we included RCTs that included solely women with stage Ib2 and IIa tumours, as well as studies that included women with stage Ib2 and IIa tumours in addition to women with less-extensive (lower-stage) tumours. We excluded studies that included women with tumours of stage IIb and above, unless they performed prespecified subgroup analyses in women with bulky early-stage disease (stage Ib2 or IIa tumours). We included systematic reviews of RCTs and RCTs where harms of an included intervention were studied applying the same study design criteria for inclusion as we did for benefits. In addition we use a regular surveillance protocol to capture harms alerts from organisations such as the FDA and the MHRA, which are added to the reviews as required. To aid readability of the numerical data in our reviews, we round many percentages to the nearest whole number. Readers should be aware of this when relating percentages to summary statistics such as relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). We have performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions included in this review (see table ). The categorisation of the quality of the evidence (into high, moderate, low, or very low) reflects the quality of evidence available for our chosen outcomes in our defined populations of interest. These categorisations are not necessarily a reflection of the overall methodological quality of any individual study, because the Clinical Evidence population and outcome of choice may represent only a small subset of the total outcomes reported, and population included, in any individual trial. For further details of how we perform the GRADE evaluation and the scoring system we use, please see our website (www.clinicalevidence.com).

Table 1.

GRADE evaluation of interventions for cervical cancer

Important outcomes Vaccine immunogenicity, rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, rates of cervical cancer, mortality, progression-free survival, recurrence, fertility, adverse effects
Number of studies (participants) Outcome Comparison Type of evidence Quality Consistency Directness Effect size GRADE Comment
What are the effects of interventions to prevent cervical cancer?
5 (39,770)[10] Rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia HPV vaccine v placebo 4 0 –2 0 0 Low Consistency points deducted for statistical heterogeneity and different results for different vaccines
4 (>27,223) [10] [12] Vaccine immunogenicity HPV vaccine v placebo 4 0 –1 0 0 Moderate Consistency point deducted for statistical heterogeneity
What are the effects of interventions to manage early-stage cervical cancer?
1 (343)[29] Mortality Radiotherapy v radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for uncertainty about disease severity
1 (343)[29] Recurrence Radiotherapy v radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy 4 –1 0 –1 0 Low Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for uncertainty about disease severity
1 (343)[29] Adverse effects Radiotherapy v radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy 4 0 0 –1 0 Moderate Directness point deducted for uncertainty about disease severity
What are the effects of additional interventions to manage bulky early-stage cervical cancer?
2 (642)[31] [32] Mortality Chemoradiotherapy v radiotherapy 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results
2 (642)[31] [32] Progression-free survival Chemoradiotherapy v radiotherapy 4 –1 0 0 0 Moderate Quality point deducted for incomplete reporting of results
5 (609)[35] [38] [39] [40] [36] [37] Mortality Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before surgery, radiotherapy, or both) v local treatment alone 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of smaller tumours in some RCTs
1 (174)[40] Progression-free survival Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before surgery, radiotherapy, or both) v local treatment alone 4 –2 0 –1 0 Very low Quality points deducted for sparse data and incomplete reporting of results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of smaller tumours in some RCTs
3 (349)[38] [36] [37] Recurrence Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before surgery, radiotherapy, or both) v local treatment alone 4 0 –1 –1 0 Low Consistency point deducted for conflicting results. Directness point deducted for inclusion of smaller tumours in some RCTs
Open in a new tab

Type of evidence: 4 = RCT. Consistency: similarity of results across studies. Directness: generalisability of population or outcomes. Effect size: based on relative risk or odds ratio.

Glossary

Adjuvant

Chemotherapy or radiotherapy after definitive treatment (surgery).

Chemoradiotherapy

Involves both chemotherapy and radiotherapy given simultaneously for a short duration of time (i.e., completing treatment within 5–6 weeks).

Conisation of the cervix

Involves removing the abnormal portion of the cervix using either a diathermy loop or a scalpel.

Low-quality evidence

Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Lymphadenectomy

Surgical removal of lymph nodes.

Moderate-quality evidence

Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Chemotherapy preceding local or definitive treatment (surgery or radiotherapy).

Radical hysterectomy

Surgical removal of the cervix, uterus, vaginal cuff, pelvic lymph nodes, obturator lymph nodes, paracervical tissue, and parametrial tissue.

Simple hysterectomy

Surgical removal of the cervix and uterus only.

Very low-quality evidence

Any estimate of effect is very uncertain.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication is intended for medical professionals. Categories presented in Clinical Evidence indicate a judgement about the strength of the evidence available to our contributors prior to publication and the relevant importance of benefit and harms. We rely on our contributors to confirm the accuracy of the information presented and to adhere to describe accepted practices. Readers should be aware that professionals in the field may have different opinions. Because of this and regular advances in medical research we strongly recommend that readers' independently verify specified treatments and drugs including manufacturers' guidance. Also, the categories do not indicate whether a particular treatment is generally appropriate or whether it is suitable for a particular individual. Ultimately it is the readers' responsibility to make their own professional judgements, so to appropriately advise and treat their patients. To the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ Publishing Group Limited and its editors are not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, products liability or otherwise) whether they be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the application of the information in this publication.

Contributor Information

Pierre Leonard Martin-Hirsch, Department of Gynaecology, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.

Nicholas James Wood, Department of Gynaecology, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.

References

  • 1.Waggoner SE. Cervical cancer. Lancet 2003;361:2217–2225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:103–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010. Published online 17 June 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, et al. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904–908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics Registrations: Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2008. London: National Statistics, 2009;32. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li N, Franceschi S, Howell-Jones R, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in 30,848 invasive cervical cancers worldwide: variation by geographical region, histological type and year of publication. Int J Cancer 2011;128:927–935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sellors JW, Mahony JB, Kaczorowski J, et al. Prevalence and predictors of human papillomavirus infection in women in Ontario, Canada. Survey of HPV in Ontario Women (SHOW) Group. CMAJ 2000;163:503–508. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Wheeler P, et al. HPV testing in routine cervical screening: cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer 2006;95:56–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, da Rosa MI, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic quantitative review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19:1166–1176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:271–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Villa LL, Ault KA, Giuliano AR, et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine 2006;24:5571–5583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Luesley D, Leeson S, eds. Colposcopy and programme management. NHS cancer screening programmes 2004. NHSCP publication No. 20. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a1284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, et al. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:145–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wright JD, Grigsby PW, Brooks R, et al. Utility of parametrectomy for early stage cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 2007;110:1281–1286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stegeman M, Louwen M, van der Velden J, et al. The incidence of parametrial tumor involvement in select patients with early cervix cancer is too low to justify parametrectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:475–480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schmeler KM, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:93–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Naik R, Cross P, Nayar A, et al. Conservative surgical management of small-volume stage IB1 cervical cancer. BJOG 2007;114:958–963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shepherd JH, Spencer C, Herod J, et al. Radical vaginal trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing procedure in women with early-stage cervical cancer-cumulative pregnancy rate in a series of 123 women. BJOG 2006;113:719–724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramirez PT, Schmeler KM, Soliman PT, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with early cervical cancer: radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110:S25–S28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR. Radical vaginal trachelectomy and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer in patients who desire to preserve fertility. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:50–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Beiner ME, Hauspy J, Rosen B, et al. Radical vaginal trachelectomy vs. radical hysterectomy for small early stage cervical cancer: a matched case-control study. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110:168–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Diaz JP, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM, et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2008;111:255–260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Einstein MH, Park KJ, Sonoda Y, et al. Radical vaginal versus abdominal trachelectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer: a comparison of surgical and pathologic outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:73–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nishio H, Fujii T, Kameyama K, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing procedure in women with early-stage cervical cancer in a series of 61 women. Gynecol Oncol 2009;115:51–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cibula D, Slama J, Svarovsky J, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy in fertility-sparing treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19:1407–1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 1997;350:535–540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Green J, Kirwan J, Tierney J, et al. Concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al. Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1154–1161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1606–1613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kirwan JM, Symonds P, Green JA, et al. A systematic review of acute and late toxicity of concomitant chemoradiation for cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003;68:217–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5802–5812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-analysis Collaboration (NACCCMA) Collaboration. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervix cancer. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Napolitano U, Imperato F, Mossa B, et al. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for squamous cell cervical cancer (Ib-IIIb): a long-term randomized trial. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2003;24:51–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cai HB, Chen HZ, Yin HH. Randomized study of preoperative chemotherapy versus primary surgery for stage IB cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006;32:315–323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sardi JE, Giaroli A, Sananes C, et al. Long-term follow-up of the first randomized trial using neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage Ib squamous carcinoma of the cervix: the final results. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:61–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chang TC, Lai CH, Hong JH, et al. Randomized trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin, vincristine, bleomycin, and radical hysterectomy versus radiation therapy for bulky stage IB and IIA cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1740–1747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Benedetti-Panici P, Greggi S, Colombo A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery versus exclusive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer: results from the Italian multicenter randomized study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:179–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rydzewska L, Tierney J, Vale CL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2010. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Search date 2009. [Google Scholar]
BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

HPV vaccine

Summary

RATES OF CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA Compared with placebo: Bivalent vaccine (HPV types 16, 18) may be more effective than placebo at reducing rates of low-grade pre-invasive disease (defined as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 1) and high-grade pre-invasive disease (defined as CIN grade 2 or 3). Quadrivalent vaccine (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18) and univalent HPV-16 vaccine (analysed together as a group) may be more effective than placebo at reducing rates of high-grade pre-invasive disease; however, we don't know whether they are more effective at reducing rates of low-grade abnormality. We don't know whether vaccination is more effective than placebo at reducing rates of adenocarcinoma in situ at 36 to 48 months ( low-quality evidence ). VACCINE IMMUNOGENICITY Compared with placebo: Bivalent vaccine (HPV types 16, 18) and quadrivalent vaccine (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18) seem more effective than placebo at increasing vaccine efficacy (assessed by persistence of infections and seroconversion to HPV) at 12 months or longer ( moderate-quality evidence ). NOTE We found no direct information about the effects of vaccination against HPV in reducing rates of cervical cancer.

Benefits

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine versus placebo:

We found one systematic review (search date 2007) assessing the efficacy of the univalent (HPV-16 virus-like particle vaccine), bivalent (HPV-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine), and quadrivalent (HPV-6/11/16/18 virus-like particle vaccine) vaccines.[10] We found one additional RCT comparing three different formulations of prophylactic quadrivalent (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine (administered at day 1, month 2, and month 6) versus placebo.[11] This RCT was excluded by the review;[10] however, we have included this RCT separately, because it fulfilled Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria.

Prevention of cytologically/histologically detected lesions:

The review found that bivalent vaccine (HPV types 16, 18) significantly reduced rates of low-grade (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 1) and high-grade (CIN grades 2 or 3) pre-invasive disease compared with placebo at 14.8 to 44 months (low grade: 2 RCTs; 7/9879 [0.1%] with vaccine v 106/9878 [1.1%] with placebo; OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.16; high grade: 2 RCTs; 2/9879 [0.02%] with vaccine v 26/9878 [0.26%] with placebo; OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.34). The review analysed RCTs assessing quadrivalent and univalent HPV vaccines together. It found that quadrivalent vaccine (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18) and univalent HPV-16 vaccine significantly reduced rates of high-grade pre-invasive disease compared with placebo at 36 to 48 months (3 RCTs [2 RCTs using quadrivalent vaccines; 1 RCT using univalent vaccine]; 173/10,003 [2%] with vaccine v 312/10,010 [3%] with placebo; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.98); but it found no significant difference between vaccine and placebo in rates of low-grade abnormality (2 RCTs [1 using quadrivalent vaccine, 1 using univalent vaccine]; 45/3916 [1%] with vaccine v 138/3930 [4%] with placebo; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.0). However, the review reported significant statistical heterogeneity and inconsistency in the analyses of quadrivalent and univalent vaccines, which it commented may have been because of the small number of included RCTs, and different duration of treatments and number of outcomes in included RCTs. The review found no significant difference between groups in rates of adenocarcinoma in situ after 36 to 48 months (2 RCTs [both using quadrivalent vaccines]; 6/8810 [0.07%] with vaccine v 13/8812 [0.15%] with control; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.73). However, rates were low, and the analysis may have lacked power to detect a difference between groups.[10]

Vaccine immunogenicity:

The review found that bivalent vaccine significantly increased vaccine efficacy (assessed by persistence of infection with HPV-16 and HPV-18) compared with placebo at 12 months (3 RCTs; 104/13,606 [0.8%] with vaccine v 188/13,617 [1.4%] with placebo; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.99). However, it reported significant statistical heterogeneity and inconsistency in this analysis, which it commented may have been because of the small number and different sample sizes of included RCTs, and because the RCTs were conducted in different countries. The review found that for quadrivalent/univalent vaccine, only one RCT reported on protection against persistent disease. It found that vaccine significantly increased protection compared with placebo (1 RCT using univalent vaccine: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26; absolute numbers not reported).[10]

The additional RCT (552 women) found that quadrivalent vaccine significantly reduced rates of persistent infection or disease with HPV types 6, 11, 16, or 18 compared with placebo over 30 months (incidence per 100 woman-years at risk: 0.8 with vaccine v 7.2 with placebo; P <0.0001; modified intention-to-treat analysis [529 women who were naive to HPV before enrolment and who received at least 1 vaccination]).[11] A follow-up analysis of the RCT assessed seroconversion. It found that at 2 months (after dose 1), vaccine-induced anti-HPV responses were approximately 12 to 26 times higher than those in women receiving placebo (HPV-16: mean 147 mMU/mL with vaccine v 6.4 mMU/mL with placebo; HPV-18: mean 14 mMU/mL with vaccine v 4.5 mMU/mL with placebo; significance not assessed). The RCT reported that the anti-HPV response initially decreased, then plateaued and remained stable over 3 years' follow-up.[12]

Harms

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine versus placebo:

The review found that injection-site events such as pain, swelling, and redness were significantly increased with bivalent vaccine compared with placebo (2 RCTs; 5925/9879 [60%] with vaccine v 4334/9878 [44%] with placebo; OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.40). It found no significant difference between vaccine and placebo in systemic adverse effects (arthralgia, fatigue, fever, etc.) or serious adverse effects (systemic adverse effects: 2 RCTs; 7974/9879 [81%] with vaccine v 7306/9878 [74%] with placebo; OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.89; serious adverse effects: 2 RCTs; 390/9879 [3.9%] with vaccine v 372/9878 [3.8%] with placebo; OR 1.05, 95% 0.91 to 1.21). The review found no significant difference in adverse effects between quadrivalent vaccine and placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.43; number of RCTs in analysis and absolute numbers not reported).[10] The additional RCT found that adverse effects at the injection site (particularly pain) were slightly more common in women receiving vaccine than placebo, but the RCT did not assess the significance of the difference between groups (250/272 [92%] with vaccine v 242/274 [88%] with placebo). [11] A modest increase (from 3% to 6%) in injection-site adverse effects was recorded with higher doses of vaccine.

Comment

Clinical guide:

HPV infection does not necessarily result in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Most HPV infection is transient; persistent HPV infection may result in CIN. A proportion of women will go on to have high-grade CIN leading to cervical cancer. Complete seroconversion rate for type-specific HPV infection, therefore, should translate to a reduction in type-specific CIN, but data about length of immunity are lacking. Both vaccines (targeting HPV types 16 and 18 or targeting HPV types 16, 18, 6, and 11) have been evaluated in industry-funded trials alone, as of October 2009, when the search for this review was completed. We found no RCTs that had sufficient sample size and length of follow-up to assess the long-term effects of the vaccine in reducing rates of CIN and more importantly cervical cancer. Immunogenicity is not a clinically important measure, and long-term surveillance of women included in these RCTs is important to make sure that the protection against CIN is persistent.

Substantive changes

HPV vaccine New evidence added.[10] Categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness), as there remains insufficient long-term data on the effects of the vaccine in reducing rates of cervical cancer.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Conisation of the cervix for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1)

Summary

NOTE We found no direct information from RCTs about conisation of the cervix compared with simple hysterectomy for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1). There is consensus that conisation of the cervix is effective for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1), provided that excision margins are clear of cancer or intraepithelial neoplasia. Conisation of the cervix can, unlike hysterectomy, preserve fertility.

Benefits

Conisation of the cervix versus simple hysterectomy:

We found no systematic review or RCTs comparing conisation of the cervix versus simple hysterectomy for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1).

Harms

Conisation of the cervix versus simple hysterectomy:

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Clinical guide:

There is consensus that conisation is effective for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1), provided that excision margins are clear of cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and that there has been an adequate review of histology by a pathologist and a multidisciplinary team experienced in dealing with gynaecological cancer. Consensus is based on observational studies, and is consistent with guidelines issued by the NHS cervical screening programme.[13]

Conisation of the cervix can, unlike hysterectomy, preserve fertility. One systematic review (search date 2004, 27 retrospective cohort studies) assessed outcomes after conservative treatments for early invasive cervical lesions.[14] It found that, compared with women who had not received treatment, women who had received cold-knife conisation or large-loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) had significantly higher rates of preterm delivery and infants with low birth weight (RR of preterm delivery v untreated controls: cold-knife conisation: RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.72; LLETZ: RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.40; RR of low birth weight v untreated controls: cold-knife conisation: RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.36; LLETZ: RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.06). Preterm delivery was defined as delivery before 37 weeks and low birth weight as <2500 g. Analysis by depth of excised tissue found that risks of preterm delivery increased further if the depth was >10 mm (RR of preterm delivery v depth <10 mm: 2.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.3).[14] An updated systematic review (search date 2007, 1 prospective cohort study, 20 retrospective studies) reported on severe pregnancy outcomes in women with or without previous treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. It identified 12 of the same studies as the earlier review; however, it also identified 8 additional or subsequent studies that were not identified by the earlier review. It found that knife cone biopsy was associated with severe preterm delivery (<32/34 weeks) (5 studies; 18/343 [5%] with cold-knife conisation v 10,457/501,740 [2%] with untreated control; RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.51) and perinatal mortality (7 studies: 33/761 [4%] with cold-knife conisation v 2305/442,385 [1%] with untreated control; RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.81). However, LLETZ was not significantly associated with such outcomes (severe preterm delivery: 4 studies; 51/3392 [2.0%] with LLETZ v 9588/472,533 [1.4%] with untreated control; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.89; perinatal mortality: 7 studies: 22/3601 [0.6%] with LLETZ v 2296/442,377 [0.5%] with untreated control; RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.87).[15]

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Conisation of the cervix plus lymphadenectomy (stage Ia2 and low-volume, good prognostic factor stage Ib)

Summary

NOTE We found no direct information from RCTs about conisation of the cervix with pelvic lymphadenectomy compared with simple or radical hysterectomy for microinvasive carcinoma stage Ia2 and low-volume stage Ib carcinoma. Conisation of the cervix can, unlike hysterectomy, preserve fertility.

Benefits

Conisation plus lymphadenectomy versus simple or radical hysterectomy for stage Ia2 and low-volume stage Ib:

We found no systematic review or RCTs.

Harms

Conisation plus lymphadenectomy versus simple or radical hysterectomy for stage Ia2 and low-volume stage Ib:

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Clinical guide:

Several reports have considered the potential role of limited treatment as opposed to radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for low-volume, good prognostic factor cervical carcinoma. Four case series in women undergoing radical hysterectomy (1889 women)[16] [17] [18] [19] and one case series in women with conservatively managed cervical cancer (17 women, 15 women had fertility-sparing treatment, 12 women had vaginal or total abdominal hysterectomy)[20] found that the incidence of parametrial invasion in women with small-volume carcinoma, absent lymphvascular space involvement (LVSI), and negative lymph nodes was 0% to 0.6%. The clinical consequences are that in women who have low-volume cervical cancers with good prognostic factors, excisional biopsy with lymphadenectomy may be adequate treatment.

Conisation can preserve fertility. For further information on adverse pregnancy outcomes with conisation see Clinical guide in conisation for stage Ia1 carcinoma.

Substantive changes

Conisation plus lymphadenectomy for stage Ia2 and low-volume stage Ib New option added. Categorised as Unknown effectiveness, as we found no RCT evidence to assess the effects of this comparison.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy

Summary

NOTE We found no direct information from RCTs about radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy compared with radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer. Unlike hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy can preserve fertility.

Benefits

Radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy:

We found no systematic review or RCTs.

Harms

Radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy:

We found no RCTs.

Comment

There are now several large case series, reviews, and descriptions of vaginal trachelectomy in the published literature.[21] [22] [23] Observational studies have demonstrated that in carefully selected women, pregnancy rates in women who want to conceive are between 50% and 70%.[21] [22]

In two large cohort studies, women who had undergone radical vaginal trachelectomy (VT) were compared with matched women who had undergone radical hysterectomy.[24] [25] The first study (90 cases, 90 matched controls, retrospective comparison) found no significant difference between groups in 5-year recurrence-free survival rates (95% with radical VT v 100% with radical hysterectomy; P = 0.17). It also found no significant difference between groups in 5-year survival rates (99% with radical VT v 100% with radical hysterectomy; P = 0.55; absolute results reported graphically; total number of deaths in follow-up: 3 with radical VT v 1 with radical hysterectomy).[24] The second study (women with stage Ib disease, 40 cases who had trachelectomy, 110 matched controls who had radical hysterectomy, retrospective design) found no significant difference in 5-year relapse-free survival rate (96% with radical trachelectomy v 86% with radical hysterectomy; P >0.05).[25]

Abdominal radical trachelectomy is a relatively new approach to fertility-sparing surgery compared with the vaginal approach. Advocates of this approach recommend this technique for adenocarcinomas, when the disease might be higher in the cervical canal, and for large-volume disease or if there is any possibility that there might be deep stromal disease, in which case it is important to ensure adequate resection of the parametrium.[26] There are now several published case series on the abdominal approach.[27] [28] The only study to compare VT and abdominal trachelectomy (AT) was a retrospective controlled study (43 women with stage Ib1 cervical cancer, 28 women with attempted VT, 15 women with attempted AT).[26] It found a significantly larger measurable parametrium on AT compared with VT pathological specimens (median gross length of parametrium: 3.97 cm with AT v 1.45 cm with VT; P = 0.01) and significantly more women had at least one parametrial lymph node detected on AT compared with VT specimens (women with parametrial lymph nodes detected: 8/15 [53%] with AT v 0/28 [0%] with VT; P = 0.0002). This would suggest that the abdominal approach removed more parametrium and surgically is more radical in its excisions. In the limited number of cases analysed, the short-term and long-term morbidity and recurrence rates with AT seemed to be similar to rates with the vaginal approach.[26] There is limited information on pregnancy rates after AT from the early published case series (85 women with stage Ia1 to Ib1 disease considered for AT, 38 had AT and attempted to conceive). The rate of successful pregnancy in women trying to conceive after AT from these studies was 14% to 56%.[27] [28]

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy (low-volume stage Ia2 and stage Ib)

Summary

NOTE We found no direct information from RCTs about simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy compared with radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer.

Benefits

Simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy:

We found no systematic review or RCTs.

Harms

Simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy:

We found no RCTs.

Comment

Clinical guide:

Several reports have considered the potential role of limited surgery as opposed to radical hysterectomy for treatment of low-volume, good prognostic factor cervical carcinoma. Four case series in women undergoing radical hysterectomy (1889 women)[16] [17] [18] [19] and one case series in women with conservatively managed cervical cancer (17 women, 15 women had fertility-sparing treatment, 12 women had vaginal or total abdominal hysterectomy)[20] found that the incidence of parametrial invasion in women with small-volume carcinoma, absent lymphvascular space involvement (LVSI), and negative lymph nodes was 0% to 0.6%. In women who have low-volume cervical cancers with good prognostic factors, simple hysterectomy combined with lymphadenectomy may be adequate surgery.

Substantive changes

Simple hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy New option added. Categorised as Unknown effectiveness, as we found no RCT evidence to assess the effects of this comparison.

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Radiotherapy versus surgery

Summary

MORTALITY Radiotherapy compared with radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy: Radiotherapy may be as effective as surgery at increasing 5-year survival in women with stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer ( low-quality evidence ). RECURRENCE Radiotherapy compared with radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy: Radiotherapy may be as effective as surgery (with or without adjuvant radiotherapy) at reducing recurrence and at increasing disease-free survival in women with stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer (low-quality evidence). ADVERSE EFFECTS Radiotherapy compared with radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy: Surgery is associated with an increased risk of adverse effects compared with radiotherapy in women with stage Ib–IIa cervical cancer ( moderate-quality evidence ). NOTE There is consensus that both surgery and radiotherapy are likely to be beneficial.

Benefits

Radiotherapy versus surgery:

We found no systematic review. We found one RCT (343 women stage Ib–IIa) comparing radiotherapy versus radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy (see comment below).[29] It found no significant difference between radiotherapy and surgery in 5-year or disease-free survival rates (results presented graphically; AR for survival: about 83% for both groups; AR for disease-free survival: about 74% for both groups; for both comparisons P value reported as not significant). Recurrence rates were similar in both groups (42/170 [25%] with surgery v 44/167 [26%] with radiotherapy; significance assessment not reported). However, the RCT did not report what proportion of women with stage Ib cancer had stage Ib1 and stage Ib2 disease.[29] The radical-hysterectomy group in the RCT received a class III abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy; women with enlarged para-aortic lymph nodes only received sampling and selective procedures.[29] Also, a large number of women in the surgery group (108/170 [64%]) received postoperative pelvic radiotherapy. The decision to provide adjuvant radiotherapy was taken pre-operatively, based on the presence of one or more known risk factors, such as UICC surgical stage greater than pT2a (see table 2 ), <3 mm of uninvolved cervical stroma, cut-through, or lymph node metastases. The trial excluded women considered medically unfit for surgery.

Table 1.

UICC staging of cervical cancer

TNM definitions
The definitions of the primary tumour categories correspond to the FIGO stages
Primary tumour (T)
TX: Primary tumour cannot be assessed
T0: No evidence of primary tumour
Tis: Carcinoma in situ
T1/I: Cervical carcinoma confined to uterus (extension to corpus should be disregarded)
•  T1a/IA: Invasive carcinoma diagnosed only by microscopy. All macroscopically visible lesions — even with superficial invasion — are T1b/IB. Stromal invasion with a maximal depth of 5 mm, measured from the base of the epithelium, and a horizontal spread of 7 mm or less. Vascular space involvement, venous or lymphatic, does not affect classification
•  T1a1/Ia1: Measured stromal invasion 3 mm or less in depth and 7 mm or less in horizontal spread
•  T1a2/IA2: Measured stromal invasion >3 mm and not >5 mm, with a horizontal spread 7 mm or less
•  T1b/IB: Clinically visible lesion confined to the cervix, or microscopic lesion greater than T1a2/IA2
•  T1b1/IB1: Clinically visible lesion 4 cm or less in greatest dimension
•  T1b2/IB2: Clinically visible lesion >4 cm in greatest dimension
T2/II: Cervical carcinoma invades beyond uterus but not to pelvic wall or to the lower third of the vagina
•  T2a/IIa: Tumour without parametrial involvement
•  T2b/IIb: Tumour with parametrial involvement
T3/III: Tumour extends to the pelvic wall and/or involves the lower third of the vagina, and/or causes hydronephrosis or non-functioning kidney
•  T3a/IIIA: Tumour involves lower third of the vagina; no extension to pelvic wall
•  T3b/IIIB: Tumour extends to pelvic wall and/or causes hydronephrosis or non-functioning kidney
T4/IVA: Tumour invades mucosa of the bladder or rectum, and/or extends beyond true pelvis (bullous oedema is not sufficient to classify a tumour as T4)
M1/IVB: Distant metastasis
Regional lymph nodes (N)
NX: Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0: No regional lymph node metastasis
N1: Regional lymph node metastasis
Distant metastasis (M)
MX: Distant metastasis cannot be assessed
M0: No distant metastasis
M1: Distant metastasis
Open in a new tab

Harms

Radiotherapy versus surgery:

Surgery significantly increased the risk of severe adverse effects compared with radiotherapy (grade 2–3 on the Chassagne morbidity scale; 28% with surgery v 12% with radiotherapy; P <0.0004).[29] Two women in the surgery group died (1 of spontaneous ileal perforation 11 months after adjuvant radiotherapy and 1 of pulmonary embolism). Pelvic radiotherapy will usually result in ablation of ovarian function. Certain surgical procedures can maintain fertility (see option on conisation of the cervix and option on radical trachelectomy plus lymphadenectomy).

Comment

Clinical guide:

Consensus regards both surgery and radiotherapy as likely to be beneficial.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy

Summary

MORTALITY Chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy: Chemoradiotherapy used either before or after hysterectomy seems more effective at increasing overall survival at 3 to 4 years in women with bulky early-stage cervical carcinoma ( moderate-quality evidence ). PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL Chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy: Chemoradiotherapy used either before or after hysterectomy seems more effective at increasing progression-free survival at 3 to 4 years in women with bulky early-stage cervical carcinoma (moderate-quality evidence). NOTE Combined chemoradiotherapy has been associated with more haematological and gastrointestinal adverse effects compared with radiotherapy.

Benefits

Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy:

We found one systematic review (search date 2004), which identified two RCTs that compared chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with bulky early-stage cervical carcinoma.[30] The first RCT identified by the review (374 women with stage Ib2 tumours) compared chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy, before hysterectomy, in all participants.[31] It found that chemoradiotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival and overall survival at 3 years compared with radiotherapy (HR for progression 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; HR for mortality 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86). The second RCT identified by the review included 268 women who had had radical hysterectomy for stage Ia2, Ib, and IIa tumours (tumour diameter 0.2–5.2 cm; proportion of women with stage Ia2 tumours not reported).[32] The women had histologically confirmed positive lymph nodes, positive parametrial involvement, or a positive surgical margin. The RCT found that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival at 4 years compared with radiotherapy (estimated progression-free survival: AR 80% with chemoradiotherapy v 63% with radiotherapy; adjusted HR 2.01, CI not reported; P = 0.003; estimated overall survival: AR 81% with chemoradiotherapy v 71% with radiotherapy; adjusted HR 1.96, CI not reported; P = 0.007).

Harms

Chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy:

The first RCT in women with bulky early-stage cervical carcinoma found that, compared with radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy increased the proportion of women with moderate or severe adverse effects (grade 3 or 4 toxicity according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; mainly haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity: 64/183 [35%] with chemoradiotherapy v 25/186 [13%] with radiotherapy; significance assessment not performed).[31] The second RCT also found that, compared with radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy increased serious adverse effects (grade 4 Southwest Oncology Group criteria; mainly haematological toxicity: 27/122 [17%] with chemoradiotherapy v 4/112 [4%] with radiotherapy; significance assessment not performed).[32] We found one systematic review (search date not reported), which assessed long-term toxicity.[33] When assessing the first RCT,[31] the review suggested that the "same number of women" receiving chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy had toxicity (mainly bowel toxicity) at long-term follow-up (11–61 months, median 36 months; absolute numbers not reported).[33] The review found no data on long-term toxicity from the second RCT.[33]

Comment

One systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis has been published subsequent to the search date of this Clinical Evidence review.[34] This review pooled data for all women with bulky cervical carcinoma (including later stages up to FIGO stage IV), and so only a subset of this population may be relevant for this Clinical Evidence review. However, we will fully assess it for inclusion at the next update.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jul 27;2011:0818.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Summary

MORTALITY Compared with local treatment (radiotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy plus surgery) alone: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before surgery, radiotherapy, or both) may be more effective at increasing overall survival at 2 to 9 years in women with bulky (stages Ib–IIa) tumours ( low-quality evidence ). PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL Compared with local treatment (radiotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy plus surgery) alone: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy may be more effective than radiotherapy alone at increasing 5-year progression-free survival in women with bulky (stages Ib–IIa) tumours ( very low-quality evidence ). RECURRENCE Compared with local treatment (radiotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy plus surgery) alone: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before surgery, radiotherapy, or both) may be more effective at reducing local recurrence and at increasing disease-free survival at 5 years in women with bulky (stage Ib) tumours (low-quality evidence).

Benefits

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before local treatment using surgery, radiotherapy, or radiotherapy plus surgery) versus local treatment alone:

We found one systematic review (search date 2006),[35] one additional RCT,[36] and one subsequent RCT[37] of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with cervical cancer.

The review identified 21 RCTs comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, radiotherapy, or radiotherapy plus surgery, versus local treatment alone (radiotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy plus surgery) in women with cervical cancer (including stages Ib–IVa).[35] The review also identified a further two RCTs for future inclusion, but did not include these in the analysis as the authors of the review were awaiting individual patient data. We have included those RCTs from the review that met Clinical Evidence inclusion criteria (RCTs which involved women with bulky early-stage cervical cancer, and were published in full).[35]

The first RCT identified by the review (205 women with stage Ib tumours, 57% with stage Ib2) compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus no neoadjuvant chemotherapy before local treatment for unresectable tumours.[38] Local treatment involved surgery plus radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone. Prespecified subgroup analysis found that neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival at 9 years, and reduced local recurrence in women with bulky (stage Ib2) tumours (117 women, survival: 80% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 61% with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P <0.01; local recurrence: 6% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 23% with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P <0.01; absolute numbers not reported).[38] The second RCT identified by the review (124 women with stage Ib–IIa tumours) compared cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (see comment below) plus radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radiotherapy alone.[39] It found no significant difference between neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery and radiotherapy alone in overall survival at 2 years or in estimated 5-year survival (2-year overall survival: 81% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 84% with radiotherapy alone; 5-year overall survival: 70% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 62% with radiotherapy alone; P = 0.77 for both comparisons; absolute numbers not reported).[39] The third RCT identified by the review (441 women with stage Ib2–III tumours) compared cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical abdominal hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radiotherapy alone.[40] A subgroup analysis (87 women in each arm) of stage Ib2 and IIa (>4 cm) tumours was prespecified at randomisation. It found that, compared with radiotherapy alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery significantly increased 5-year overall survival (69% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 51% with radiotherapy alone; P = 0.01) and 5-year progression-free survival (65% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 51% with radiotherapy alone; P = 0.01; absolute numbers not reported).[40]

The additional RCT (identified by the review for future inclusion, 192 women with stage Ib–IIIb tumours) compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin, vincristine, and bleomycin) before surgery or radiotherapy versus surgery or radiotherapy alone.[36] A post-hoc subgroup analysis in women with stage Ib–IIa tumours found that neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased disease-free 5-year survival compared with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but found no significant difference in overall 5-year survival between groups (126 women; disease-free 5-year survival: 77% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 64% with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P <0.05; overall 5-year survival: 79% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 73% with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; reported as not significant; P value not reported).[36]

The subsequent RCT (106 women with stage Ib tumours, 64% with stage Ib2) compared cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery alone.[37] All women with deep cervical invasion, parametrial extension, or positive lymph nodes also received postoperative radiotherapy. A subgroup analysis in women with bulky (stage Ib2) tumours found that neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved overall 5-year survival compared with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy (32/38 [84%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 23/30 [77%] with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P = 0.04). The RCT did not report recurrence rates separately for stage Ib1 and Ib2 tumours. It found no significant difference in recurrence rates within 5 years between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; however, recurrence was lower with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (10/52 [19%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy v 19/54 [35%] with no neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P = 0.08).[37]

Harms

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (before local treatment using surgery, radiotherapy, or radiotherapy plus surgery) versus local treatment alone:

The systematic review gave no information on adverse effects.[35]

The first RCT identified by the review reported that, in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, there were 4 confirmed cases of peripheral neurotoxicity, one case of renal toxicity with transient tubular failure, and two cases of mild pulmonary toxicity. It did not report on adverse effects in the group that had no neoadjuvant chemotherapy.[38]

The second RCT identified by the review found that rates of acute nausea and vomiting were higher in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery than in women receiving radiotherapy alone (59/68 [87%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 29/50 [58%] with radiotherapy alone; significance assessment not performed for any of the comparisons).[39] Rates of intestinal obstruction were also higher (intestinal obstruction: 23/68 [34%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 12/50 [24%] with radiotherapy alone; significance assessment not performed for any of the comparisons). However, radiotherapy alone increased the proportion of women with diarrhoea, and late radiation cystitis and late radiation proctitis compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (diarrhoea: 13/68 [19%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 46/50 [92%] with radiotherapy alone; late radiation cystitis and late radiation proctitis: 22/68 [32%] with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery v 41/50 [82%] with radiotherapy alone; significance assessment not performed for any of the comparisons). There were no treatment-related deaths. These results must be interpreted with caution, since several women in these groups would have received adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy in addition to their primary treatment, and this will influence toxicity.[39]

The third RCT identified by the review gave no specific information on adverse effects, but no treatment-related deaths occurred.[40]

The additional[36] and subsequent[37] RCTs also gave no information on adverse effects.

Comment

One systematic review (6 RCTs, 1072 women) has been published subsequent to the search date of this Clinical Evidence review comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone.[41] The review included RCTs in women with FIGO stages Ib–IIIb cervical cancer; however, it presented subgroup analyses by stage (stage Ib only, and stages Ib–IIIb). We will assess it fully for inclusion at the next update of this Clinical Evidence review. The review suggested that there might be potential benefits from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but results were not significant. Further trials are required to investigate the role of this treatment.

Substantive changes

No new evidence

Articles from BMJ Clinical Evidence are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES