Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the
clinicopathological factors of cervical cancer and its prognostic significance,
various treatment adopted and their outcome in our local sitting.
Conclusion: Most of cervical cancer patients at our Institute were seen at late
stage which reflects lack of effective cervical screening program and necessitating
the need for organized referral system to regional center to ensure optimal
combined treatment.
Introduction
Cervical cancer is one of the common gynecological
malignancies, with nearly 500,000 newly diagnosed cases each
year of which more than 90% in developing countries [1]. The
highest incidence of cervical cancer occurs in Central and South
America, Eastern Africa, South and South-East Asia, and Melanesia
[2]. Invasive cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer
deaths in Africa accounting for 10.4%, which represents one in
five of all cancer deaths in African women [3].
The main reasons for higher incidence and mortality of the
cervical cancer in developing countries include lack of awareness
of cervical cancer in the general population and health care
providers and lack of effective screening program to detect and
treat early stage of the disease [4].
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Treatment
Follow Up
Statistical Analysis
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
2/8
Ethical Considerations
Results
Treatment
Surgery
Combined modality
Adjuvant therapy
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Variable
Number
Percentage
Age
Median
Range
< 50
50
55
28 - 75
38
45
45.8
54.2
34
49
41.0
59.0
77
6
92.8
7.2
Duration of Symptoms
Mean
Range
Symptoms
Vaginal Bleeding
Vaginal Discharge
Vaginal Bleeding & Urinary Symptoms
Urinary symptoms
Pain & vaginal bleeding
Histology
Squamous cell carcinoma
Adenocarcinoma
Tumor Size
4 cm
> 4 cm
Grade
Well Differentiated
Moderately Differentiated
Poorly Differentiated
3/8
8
2 48
38
15
9
6
16
21
62
53
30
1
9
6
20
7
28
6
6
9
34
40
16
63
4
45.8
18.1
10.8
7.2
19.3
25.3
74.7
63.9
36.1
1.2
10.8
7.2
24.1
8.4
33.7
7.2
7.2
10.8
41.0
48.2
19.3
75.9
4.8
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
4/8
Number
Percentage
Total Recurrences
37
48.0
Total DM
16
20.8
Isolated LR
Isolated DM
DM + LR
Site of DM
21
13
3
Lung
Liver
27.3
16.9
3.9
4
3
1
1
1
Survival
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Table 3: Univariate analysis for DFS and OS in 77 patients with cervical cancer.
5/8
Variables
Age
< 55 (n=36)
55 (n=41)
Grade
Well Differentiated (n= 9)
Moderately Differentiated (n= 32)
Poorly Differentiated (n= 36)
Initial Treatment Adopted
Surgery (n= 16)
-EBRT alone (n=11)
-CT+EBRT (n=32)
-EBRT + Brachy (n=4)
-CT+EBRT+ Brachy (n=14)
DFS
OS
40.7
51.2
P= 0.37
48.9
58.0
P= 0.22
48.8
16.7
P= 0.12
57.1
16.7
P= 0.09
39.1
51.1
P= 0.44
48.6
56.9
P= 0.49
57.1
42.1
P= 0.28
73.5
47.1
P= 0.033
90
50.0
36.7
16.7
P= 0.009
88.9
61.7
45.5
16.7
P= 0.001
68.2
27.3
34.1
50.0
64.3
P= 0.07
71.8
30.3
38.4
50.0
69.3
P= 0.034
45.4
48.0
P= 0.96
33.3
49.0
47.2
P= 0.79
56.9
47.7
P= 0.57
44.4
62.4
49.0
P= 0.39
Complications of Surgery
Treatment Toxicity
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
6/8
country and women tend to seek medical advice only when they
have developed symptoms. In England, 23.8% of 382 women
were diagnosed in stages III and IV [16] which contributes to the
longer survival [17].
Discussion
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
Conclusion
Author Contributions
References
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
7/8
12. Freedman LS, Edwards BK, Ries LAG, Young JL (2006) Cancer
Incidence in Four Member Countries (MECC) compared with US
SEER. National Cancer Institute 6: 5873.
13. Stewart BW, Kleihues P (2003) World Cancer Report. International
Agency for Research Cancer.
17. American Cancer Society (1999) Cancer facts and figures. American
Cancer Society, Atlanta, USA.
18. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, et al.
(1999) Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared
with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical
carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340(15): 1154-1161.
19. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, Malfetano JH, Hannigan EV, et al.
(1999) Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus
hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA
carcinoma of the cervix with negative para aortic lymph nodes: a
Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study.
J Clin Oncol 17(5): 1339-1348.
20. Thomas GM (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation for
locally advanced cervical cancer: the new standard of care. Semin
Radiat Oncol 10(1): 44-50.
21. Rose PG (2006) Concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058
Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer
Institute
22. Eifel PJ, Winter K, Morris M, Levenback C, Grigsby PW, et al. (2004)
Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and
para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of
radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. J Clin Oncol
22(5): 872-880.
23. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Camel HM, Galakatos AE, Mutch D, et al.
(1995) Irradiation alone or combined with surgery in stage IB, IIA
and IIB carcinoma of uterine cervix: Update of a non randomised
comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31(4): 703-716.
24. Kim RY, Trotti A, Wu CJ Soong SJ, Salter MM (1989) Radiation alone
in the treatment of cancer of the uterine cervix; Analysis of pelvic
failure and dose response relationship. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
17(5): 973-978.
25. Volterrani F, Feltre L, Sigurta D, Giuseppe MD, Luciani L (1983)
Radiotherapy versus surgery in the treatment of cervix stage Ib
cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(12): 1781-1784.
26. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, et al. (1997)
Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage
Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350(9077): 535-540.
28. Montana GS, Fowler WC, Varia MA, Walton LA, Mack Y, et al. (1986)
Carcinoma of the Cervix, Stage III Results of Radiation Therapy.
Copyright:
2015 Attia et al.
8/8
32. Aoki Y, Sasaki M, Watanabe M, Sato T, Tsuneki I, et al. (2000) Highrisk group in node-positive patients with stage IB, IIA, and IIB
cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy and postoperative
pelvic irradiation. Gynecol Oncol 77(2): 305-309.
33. Trattner M, Graf AH, Lax S, Forstner R, Dandachi N, et al. (2001)
Prognostic factors in surgically treated stage ib-iib cervical
carcinomas with special emphasis on the importance of tumor
volume. Gynecol Oncol 82(1): 11-16.
34. Kristensen GB, Abeler VM, Risberg B, Trop C, Bryne M (1999) Tumor
size, depth of invasion, and grading of the invasive tumor front
are the main prognostic factors in early squamous cell carcinoma.
Gynecol Oncol 74(2): 245-251.
35. Ayhan A, Al RA, Baykal C, Demirtas E, Yuce K, et al. (2004) A
comparison of prognoses of FIGO stage IB adenocarcinoma and
squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14(2): 279-285.
Citation: Attia AM, Salem MA, Amira G (2015) Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Cervical Cancer at South Egypt Cancer Institute. J Cancer
Prev Curr Res 2(6): 00058. DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2015.02.00058