ObjectiveTo evaluate the non-inferiority and safety of simple hysterectomy in early stage (<2 cm) cervical cancer.MethodsThis proof-of-concept randomized phase II non-inferiority trial was performed between May 2015 and April 2018 in three oncological centers in Northeast Brazil. Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stages IA2–IB1 cervical cancer and tumors ≤2 cm were treated with either simple or modified radical hysterectomy (Querleu–Morrow type B2). Intention-to-treat analysis was carried out. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival and secondary endpoints were overall survival, operative outcomes, adjuvant therapy, and patient’s health-related quality of life (QoL).ResultsA total of 40 patients underwent either simple hysterectomy (n=20) or modified radical hysterectomy (n=20). All patients except three underwent open procedures (n=37/40, 92.5%). At a median follow-up of 52.1 months (IQR 43.9–60.1), 3-year disease-free survival was 95% (95% CI 68% to 99%) after simple hysterectomy and 100% (95% CI 100% to 100%) after modified radical hysterectomy (log-rank p=0.30). The corresponding 5-year overall survival rates were 90% (95% CI 64% to 97%) and 91% (95% CI 50% to 98%), respectively (log-rank p=0.46). The operative time was shorter after simple hysterectomy than after modified radical hysterectomy (150 min (IQR 137.5–180) vs 199.5 min (IQR 140–230); p=0.003), with a trend towards a longer time for vesical catheterization removal (1 day (IQR 1–1) vs 1 day (IQR 1–2); p=0.043). There was no post-operative mortality and the rates of post-operative complications were not statistically different between arms (15% and 25%; p=0.69). QoL questionnaires were received from only 17 patients (42.5%), with no major differences observed over time between the surgical arms.ConclusionsSimple hysterectomy is safe and potentially non-inferior to the radical surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer ≤2 cm.Trial Registration numberNCT02613286.

Objective Several controversies remain on conservative management of cervical cancer. Our aim was to develop a consensus recommendation on important and novel topics of fertility‐sparing treatment of cervical cancer. Methods The consensus was sponsored by the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO) from March 2020 to September 2020 and included a multidisciplinary team of 55 specialists. A total of 21 questions were addressed and they were assigned to specialists' groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Further, the coordinators evaluated the recommendations that were classified by the level of evidence, and finally, they were voted by all participants. Results The questions included controversial topics on tumor assessment, surgical treatment, and surveillance in conservative management of cervical cancer. The two topics with lower agreement rates were the role of minimally invasive approach in radical trachelectomy and parametrial preservation. Additionally, only three recommendations had <90% of agreement (fertility preservation in Stage Ib2, anti‐stenosis device, and uterine transposition). Conclusions As very few clinical trials have been developed in surgery for cervical cancer, most recommendations were supported by low levels of evidence. We addressed important and novel topics in conservative management of cervical cancer and our study may contribute to literature.

No abstract