Skip to main content
Top

17-06-2024 | Cervical Cancer | Opinion

Should all fellows in gynecologic oncology have experience performing radical hysterectomies, or should this be limited to select surgeons? Is medical oncology the future direction for gynecologic oncologists?

Authors: Kenro Chikazawa, Ken Imai, Tomoyuki Kuwata, Ryo Konno

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Login to get access

Excerpt

A recent trial, “Radical Versus Simple Hysterectomy and Pelvic Node Dissection in Low-risk Early-Stage Cervical Cancer,” [1] revealed that simple hysterectomy is safe in women with low-risk, early-stage cervical cancer with a tumor size of ≤ 2 cm. According to the “Surveillance in Cervical Cancer” study, non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (RH) was found to enhance the 5-year disease-free survival in patients with tumors measuring 21–40 mm in size when compared to those who underwent nerve-sparing RH [2]. In patients with tumors ≤ 20 mm in size, occult extracervical cancer is not a significant concern. Considering the association between tumor size and the risk of occult parauterine metastasis [2], RH remains necessary to remove potential occult disease in patients with tumors 2–4 cm in size. Nonetheless, the question of whether routine recommendations for RH should extend beyond those specific cases, despite bladder dysfunction being a common complication, remains critical. …
Literature
Metadata
Title
Should all fellows in gynecologic oncology have experience performing radical hysterectomies, or should this be limited to select surgeons? Is medical oncology the future direction for gynecologic oncologists?
Authors
Kenro Chikazawa
Ken Imai
Tomoyuki Kuwata
Ryo Konno
Publication date
17-06-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07597-w