title: The abandoned radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: clinical predictors and outcomes.
abstract: Objective. Cervical cancer patients who had an abandoned radical hysterectomy were evaluated for preoperative clinical predictors, complication rates, and outcomes. Study Design. IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective analysis and chart review was performed. Results. From 268 women with early-stage (IA2 to IIA) cervical cancer, 19 (7%) had an abandoned hysterectomy for finding grossly positive lymph nodes (84%) or pelvic spread of tumor (16%). No clinical characteristics clearly identified women preoperatively at risk of having an abandoned hysterectomy. In the abandoned group, 26% suffered major morbidities, compared to 34% in the completed group (OR 0.69, [CI 0.16-2.57], P = .789). Thirty-seven percent recurred in the abandoned group, compared to 18% in the completed group (P = .168). Overall survival in the abandoned group was 73% versus 80% in the completed group (P = .772). Conclusion. The practice of abandoning a planned radical hysterectomy for unexpected metastatic disease may not worsen the outcome.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
authors.forename: Heidi J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Gray
authors.forename: Erin
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Seifert
authors.forename: Victor G
authors.initials: VG
authors.lastname: Sal Y Rosas
authors.forename: Katrina F
authors.initials: KF
authors.lastname: Nicandri
authors.forename: Wui-Jin
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Koh
authors.forename: Barbara A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Goff
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):53-8
references.pmid: 18255127
references.citation: Cancer. 1991 Jul 15;68(2):272-7
references.pmid: 2070325
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jan;17(1):41-5
references.pmid: 10458216
references.citation: CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Mar-Apr;58(2):71-96
references.pmid: 18287387
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Oct;95(1):204-7
references.pmid: 15385133
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1999 Sep;74(3):436-42
references.pmid: 10479506
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jul;106(1):29-34
references.pmid: 17482666
references.citation: Cancer. 2005 Dec 1;104(11):2484-91
references.pmid: 16270319
references.citation: Cancer. 1998 Jun 1;82(11):2241-8
references.pmid: 9610705
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 May-Jun;15(3):498-502
references.pmid: 15882176
references.citation: Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1995 Jul;5(4):250-256
references.pmid: 11578485
references.citation: Cancer. 2001 Jun 15;91(12):2214-21
references.pmid: 11413508
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2000 Apr;18(8):1606-13
references.pmid: 10764420
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):43-8
references.pmid: 18234297
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Aug 1;71(5):1335-42
references.pmid: 18355976
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992 Nov 19;47(2):147-51
references.pmid: 1459328
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Sep 1;19(17):3745-9
references.pmid: 11533097
references.citation: Lancet. 1997 Aug 23;350(9077):535-40
references.pmid: 9284774
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7428-36
references.pmid: 16234510
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Sep;102(3):563-72
references.pmid: 16716379
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 1990 Apr;37(1):78-81
references.pmid: 2323617
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989 Jan;16(1):37-42
references.pmid: 2912956
references.citation: Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Dec;79(3):350-6
references.pmid: 11104604
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983 Apr;9(4):445-55
references.pmid: 6853249