Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int Urogynecol J. 2015 May 14;27(1):29–38. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2731-8

Table 4.

Treatment patterns in patients with cervical cancer complicated by uterine prolapse

Treatment pattern Treatment No. (%) of patients
RT alone 30 (38.5)
 Type of RT WPRT+ICBT 16 (53.3)
WPRT alone 7 (23.3)
ICBT alone 7 (23.3)
RT followed by surgery 9 (11.5)
 Type of RT WPRT+ICBT 5 (55.6)
WPRT alone 2 (22.2)
ICBT alone 2 (22.2)
 Type of surgery VH 5 (55.6)
VRH 2 (22.2)
RH (NOS) 1 (11.1)
Hysterectomy (NOS) 1 (11.1)
Surgery alone 26 (33.3)
 Type of surgery VH 10 (38.5)
VRH 8 (30.8)
Cervical amputation 4 (15.4)
Pelvic exenteration 2 (7.7)
Abdominal RH 1 (3.8)
Surgery followed by RT 13 (16.7)
 Type of surgery Vaginal RH 7 (53.8)
Cervical amputation 2 (15.4)
TAH 1 (7.7)
TLRH 1 (7.7)
VH 1 (7.7)
Hysterectomy (NOS) 1 (7.7)
 Type of RT WPRT+ICBT 2 (15.4)
WPRT alone 6 (46.2)
ICBT alone 5 (38.5)
Other surgical procedure Pelvic LND 7 (14.6)
Prolapse repair 9 (18.8)
Mesh placement 1 (2.1)

RT radiotherapy, WPRT whole-pelvis radiotherapy, ICBT intracavitary brachytherapy, VH vaginal hysterectomy, VRH vaginal radical hysterectomy, RH radical hysterectomy, NOS not otherwise specified, TAH total abdominal hysterectomy, TLRH total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, LND lymphadenectomy