Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in early‑stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix

  • Authors:
    • W. J. Tian
    • M. Q. Zhang
    • R. H. Shui
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: October 12, 2011     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.439
  • Pages: 125-130
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix (SCCUC) is rare and its biologic behavior is aggressive. To analyze prognostic factors and determine optimal therapy in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIA SCCUC, we retrospectively reviewed 96 patients (14 patients treated in our center and 82 patients identified by a search on PubMed) treated with radical surgery (SU), surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (SU+Chemo), or surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy (SU+Chemo+RT) between 1990 and 2010. Of the 96 patients, 11 patients were treated with SU, 33 with SU+Chemo, and 52 with SU+Chemo+RT. The 5-year survival rate for the 96 patients was 45%. A total of 6% (2/32) of patients had local recurrence, 75% (24/32) had distant metastases, and 19% (6/32) had both. The 5-year survival rate in stage IB1 and IB2-IIA disease was 58 and 34%, respectively (P=0.049). For patients with and without lymph node metastases (LNM), survival was 33 and 60%, respectively (P=0.045). Patients with inner 1/3 stromal invasion had a better survival than those with deep stromal invasion (DSI) (100 vs. 34%, P=0.003). Survival was not significantly different in patients treated with the above three modalities, albeit treatment selection was related to LNM (P=0.000) and DSI (P=0.027). Thus, FIGO stage, LNM and DSI are significant predictors of survival. Adjuvant therapy after SU has not improved survival compared with surgery alone. Thus, newer multimodality therapy should be evaluated.

Introduction

Small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix (SCCUC) is a rare gynecologic malignancy and constitutes less than 5% of all invasive cervical carcinomas (14). The histology and biologic behavior of SCCUC are similar to that of small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), which is highly aggressive. Due to the high incidence of lymph vascular space involvement (LVSI), lymph node metastases (LNM), and distant metastases, the prognosis of SCCUC is poorer than that of other histological types of cervical carcinoma (5,6). The 5-year survival rates for SCCUC range from 31.6 to 46.6% for early-stage disease and from 0 to 14% for advanced stage disease (1,2,7).

Previous studies showed that patients with SCCUC treated with a modality similar to the standard treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix have a poor prognosis (79). It is thus imperative to identify prognostic factors and optimal treatment strategies to improve treatment outcome. Due to the rarity of SCCUC, it is difficult to obtain comprehensive evidence-based information regarding prognostic factors and optimal treatment modalities. Therefore, a retrospective study of treatment experience is valuable to enhance our understanding of SCCUC.

Thus, we pooled our cases with all of the reported relevant cases in the literature and conducted a retrospective study to obtain more information pertaining to treatment outcome and prognostic factors in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIA patients with SCCUC.

Patients and methods

Patients

We searched the computerized hospital database of patients treated for carcinoma of the uterine cervix between 1995 and 2008 at the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, China, to identify patients whose tumors were diagnosed as SCCUC. Only patients who received radical surgery, with or without adjuvant treatment for FIGO stage IB1-IIA SCCUC at our hospital were included in this study. As primary treatment, patients underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant treatment included chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus pelvic or extended-field radiotherapy. The follow-up data were updated on June 30, 2010.

Patient selection criteria and treatment modalities

Histologic sections were reviewed with criteria for the diagnosis of SCCUC (10). In brief, the criteria included the presence of small cells with scant cytoplasm, hyperchromatic nuclei with indistinct nucleoli and nuclear molding, and numerous mitoses and extensive necrosis. In addition, SCCUC had to be positive for at least one of the neuro-endocrine markers.

To obtain a sufficient number of cases of this rare disease for analysis, we also retrieved the relevant cases reported in the English literature since 1990 through a search on PubMed. Clinical and pathological variables included age, tumor size, FIGO stage, tumor homology, lymph node status, depth of stromal invasion, LVSI, types of chemotherapy and treatment modalities. Adjuvant chemotherapy was divided into two categories: similar or not similar to that of SCLC. The former category included VAC (vincristine, adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide) and PE (platinum and etoposide). The latter category included the single or multiple administration of mitomycin, ifosfamide, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel and platinum.

Statistical analysis

The primary endpoints were any cancer- related death and overall survival (OS), calculated from the date of diagnosis to death, or censored at the last follow-up. Statistical analysis of the pooled data from the combined patients was performed. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The statistical software package SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all data analyses.

Results

Among the 5,127 patients with cervical carcinoma who were treated at our hospital between 1995 and 2008, 24 patients presented SCCUC, representing 0.5% of the total. There were 9 patients with stage IB1 SCCUC, 2 stage IB2, 7 stage IIA, 4 stage IIB, and 2 stage IVB by FIGO staging. Only 14 patients with stage IB1-IIA SCCUC met our criteria and were included in this study. Characteristics of these patients are shown in Table I. Median age at diagnosis was 40 years (range 30–51). Median tumor size was 3.0 cm (range 2.0–8.0). The positive staining for synaptophysin, chromogranin, and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) was 85.7% (12/14), 78.6% (11/14), and 92.9% (13/14), respectively. Based on the preoperative histologic examination, 11 patients (79%) were accurately diagnosed as SCCUC and the remaining 3 patients were misdiagnosed as moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma and poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma prior to surgery. A total of 12 patients were pure SCCUC while 2 had focal squamous cell carcinoma (n=1) or adenosquamous cell carcinoma (n=1). Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 1 patient, and the remaining 13 patients received postoperative chemotherapy and RT.

Table I

Characteristics and survivorship of 14 patients at the Shanghai Cancer Center.

Table I

Characteristics and survivorship of 14 patients at the Shanghai Cancer Center.

CharacteristicsSurvivorship, no. (survived/total)
Median age, years (range)40 (30–51)
Median tumor size, cm (range)3.0 (2.0–8.0)
FIGO stage
 IB15/8
 IB20
 IIA2/6
Histology, (No. of patients)
 Pure5/12
 Mixed2/2
DSI, (≥2/3 stromal invasion)
 Yes3/10
 No4/4
LVSI
 Yes3/8
 No4/6
LNM
 Yes5/11
 No2/3
Treatment modalities
 SU+Chemo1/1
 SU+Chemo+RT6/13
Chemotherapy regimen
 Cs6/10
 Cns1/4

[i] SCCUC, small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; DSI, deep stromal invasion; LVSI, lymph vascular space invasion; LNM, lymph node metastases; SU, radical surgery; Chemo, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; Cs, chemotherapy similar to that for small cell lung carcinoma (PE/VAC); Cns, chemotherapy not similar to that for small cell lung carcinoma.

The median survival of the 14 patients was 45.8 months. During a median follow-up of 25.4 months (range 6.8–46.4), 7 patients remained alive without disease, while 7 patients succumbed to the disease. The 7 patients with recurrent disease received postoperative chemotherapy and RT. Of the 7 patients, no patient was found to have local recurrence alone, 5 (36%) had distant metastases, and 2 (14%) had both at the time of recurrence. The median time of recurrence was 14.2 months (range 4.6–30.4). Of the 7 patients with recurrent disease, 5 (71%) had relapse within 24 months after diagnosis.

A total of 82 early-stage SCCUC patients who had undergone SU with or without adjuvant therapy were identified by a search on PubMed (3,4,9,1130). The total number of patients for analysis was 96. Median age was 40 years (range 20–67), and the median survival was 39.0 months (95% CI, 14.5–63.5). The estimated 2- and 5-year survival rates were 62 and 45%, respectively (Fig. 1). For the 96 patients, the independent variables of stage IB1, absence of LNM and inner 1/3 stromal invasion were found to have a significant, favorable impact on survival (Table II, Figs. 24). We observed that patients who received chemotherapy similar to that of SCLC appeared to have more survival benefits than patients who received other types of chemotherapy regimen. However, statistical significance was not achieved (P=0.079). Treatment modalities were also not related to survival. Treatment selection was related to LNM and DSI (Table III). Following stratification according to these variables, we did not find any relationship between treatment and survival (data not shown). With a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range 9-209), 49 patients exhibited recurrence. Among them, 45 patients succumbed to the disease, and 4 patients were alive with disease. Detailed relapse data were available in 32 patients (Table IV). Of these 32 patients, 2 (6%) presented local, 24 (75%) distant, and 6 (19%) presented both local and distant recurrence.

Table II

Analysis of prognostic factors in 96 early-stage SCCUC patients.

Table II

Analysis of prognostic factors in 96 early-stage SCCUC patients.

CharacteristicsSurvivorship, no. (survived/total) (%)P-valuea
Age (years)
≤40 vs. >4027/55 (49)24/41 (59)0.199
FIGO stage
 IB1 vs. IB2-IIA29/47 (62)9/20 (45)0.049
Tumor size (cm)
 ≤4 vs. >429/50 (58)9/16 (56)0.343
Histology
 Pure vs. Mixed31/53 (58)11/19 (58)0.880
LVSI
 No vs. Yes13/20 (65)17/36 (47)0.308
LNM
 No vs. Yes26/41 (63)13/30 (43)0.045
DSI (≥2/3 stromal invasion)
 No vs. Yes11/11 (100)7/17 (41)0.003
Chemotherapy regimen
 Cs vs. Cns34/55 (62)2/10 (20)0.079
Treatment modalities
 SU vs. SU+Chemo7/11 (64)19/33 (58)0.440
 SU vs. SU+Chemo+RT7/11 (64)25/52 (48)0.250
 SU+Chemo vs. SU+Chemo+RT19/33 (58)25/52 (48)0.573

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn2-ol-03-01-0125'] } SCCUC, small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; LVSI, lymph vascular space involvement; LNM, lymph node metastases; DSI, deep stromal invasion; SU, radical surgery; Chemo, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy; Cs, chemotherapy similar to that for small cell lung carcinoma (PE/VAC); Cns, chemotherapy not similar to that for small cell lung carcinoma.

a Assessed by the log-rank test of survival equality.

Table III

The treatment relationship between LNM and DSI.

Table III

The treatment relationship between LNM and DSI.

LNMDSI


Treatment modalityNoYesNoYes
SU8030
SU+Chemo20532
SU+Chemo+RT1325515
P-value0.0000.027

[i] LNM, lymph node metastases; DSI, deep stromal invasion; SU, surgery; Chemo, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy.

Table IV

Recurrence patterns of 32 patients with SCCUC.

Table IV

Recurrence patterns of 32 patients with SCCUC.

Recurrence patternsNo. of patients (%)
Local2 (6)
Local + distant6 (19)
Distant24 (75)
Multiple sites12 (37.5)
Single site12 (37.5)
Distant sites
 Liver15
 Bone12
 Lung11
 Para-aortic nodes7
 Brain6
 Breast2
 Pancreas2
 Inguinal nodes2
 Mediastinal nodes2
 Supraclavicular nodes2
 Kidney1
 Pleural1
 Vertebrae1

Discussion

SCCUC is a rare and aggressive subtype of cervical carcinoma. Our results revealed that the 5-year survival rate for patients with FIGO IB1-IIA SCCUC was 45%, consistent with a previous report of 46.6% (2). FIGO stage, lymph node status, and depth of stromal invasion were significant predictors of survival. Although 85 of 96 patients in the current study had received chemotherapy, distant metastasis was found to be the main recurrent pattern. Thus, SCCUC remains a therapeutic challenge for clinicians.

Clinicopathological characteristics, such as large tumor size, LNM, advanced stage, DSI, number of positive lymph nodes, and pure small cell histology have been suggested as possible poor prognostic factors (1,3,8,9,31). As for early-stage SCCUC, only four studies exist concerning the analysis of prognostic features (2,23,31,32). FIGO stage (IB1 vs. IB2-IIA) (2,32) and lymph node status (23,31,32) are significant indicators for survival. In addition, postoperative VAC or PE is a favorable regimen for improving survival (23,31). We observed a favorable survival for patients who received VAC or PE, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.079). This finding may be due to the small number of patients who received other chemotherapy regimens (Table II). In our current study, the 5-year survival rate for stages IB1 and IB2-IIA patients were 58 and 34%, respectively (P=0.049); for patients with and without LNM, the rates were 33 and 60%, respectively (P=0.045). These findings are consistent with those of previous reports (2,31). We also observed that DSI was a poor prognostic factor. The 5-year survival rate for patients with outer 2/3 stromal invasion was 34%, while it was 100% for patients with inner 1/3 stromal invasion (P=0.003).

However, determining the optimal treatment for early-stage SCCUC remains a challenge. While the majority of early-stage cervical carcinomas can be successfully managed with SU, this conventional local treatment has yet to be revealed to be successful in SCCUC. In the study by Sevin et al (9), where surgery with or without adjuvant radiation was used for early-stage SCCUC, the 5-year disease-free survival was 36.4%. Sheets et al (8) reported 14 patients with early-stage SCCUC, all treated with surgery; in addition, 7 patients with positive nodes or other high-risk features were also given adjuvant radiation. During follow-up, 12 patients had died of disease and the 2 survivors had recurrent disease. There are, however, some cases successfully treated with surgery alone. Boruta et al (23) described 3 early-stage patients who were treated with surgery alone and were noted to have no evidence of recurrent disease 56, 86 and 98 months after treatment. The 3 patients had negative surgical margins and no evidence of metastatic disease to their lymph nodes. In our current study, there were 11 patients treated with surgery alone. With a median follow up of 60 months, 7 patients survived without disease. Among them, 6 patients presented stage IB1 disease with tumor size ranging from 0.8 to 3.0 cm; LNM was negative for all 6 patients, and the remaining 1 stage IB patient had no detailed pathologic information. Based on these retrospective reviews, we believe that SU alone should be limited to patients with stage IB1 disease, small tumors and favorable features, otherwise multimodality treatment should be considered.

For early-stage SCCUC, most clinicians favor the use of SU with adjuvant multimodality treatment due to its poor prognosis. Recent studies, including the current one, have revealed the high incidence of distant metastases even in early-stage patients (3,3133), indicating the need for systemic chemotherapy. Since the natural history of SCCUC is akin to that of SCLC, Pazdur et al (34) first recommended in 1981 that the chemotherapy regimen used for SCCUC patients be similar to that of SCLC. Zivanovic et al (33) reported that in patients with early-stage disease the addition of systemic platinum and etoposide-based chemotherapy appears to have a protective effect on the development of distant metastases. Of the 5 early-stage patients without chemotherapy as part of their initial treatment, all developed distant metastases within 2 years of diagnosis. This finding is in contrast to 6 patients who were treated with adjuvant platinum and etoposide-based combination therapy. In that group only 1 patient developed systemic disease (P=0.015). Two meta-analyses reported by Chang et al (31) (40 patients) and Boruta et al (23) (34 patients) revealed that for early-stage patients, the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy using a VAC or PE regimen offered a more favorable survival than other chemotherapeutic regimens. In the current study, adjuvant VAC or PE chemotherapy tended to favor survival, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.079). Similarly, other studies were also unable to prove any statistically significant benefit to using adjuvant chemotherapy (1,3). Despite the propensity for early distant metastases, localized control should be emphasized. Viswanathan et al (3) reported 2 patients who exhibited recurrence following surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy; their first site of recurrence was in the pelvis. Neither patient received adjuvant RT. However, Sheets et al (8) proposed that these tumors may be radioresistant as 5 of 7 patients treated with surgery and adjuvant RT experienced pelvic failures. Sevin et al (9) reported similar results. Of the 5 patients receiving postoperative pelvic radiation who succumbed to their disease, 4 patients exhibited pelvic recurrences and 3 had distant metastases. However, the authors argued that radiation may be beneficial since, in their study, 2 patients with LNM and LVSI who received postoperative adjuvant radiation were cured, whereas the remaining 2 patients, who did not receive postoperative radiation, developed pelvic recurrences.

The above discussion indicates that it is impossible to provide an optimal treatment protocol due to the different results and the limited number of patients. To the best of our knowledge, no studies exist that have compared SU alone with SU plus adjuvant treatment in early-stage SCCUC. In the present study, patients with early-stage SCCUC who were treated with SU alone, or SU plus adjuvant chemotherapy (SU+Chemo), or SU plus adjuvant chemotherapy and RT (SU+Chemo+RT) were examined. The number of patients in the three groups was 11, 33 and 52, respectively. We observed that there were no differences in survival in the three groups, indicating that the current multimodality treatment did not improve survival compared with surgery alone for women with early-stage SCCUC. Given this, further studies are required to develop novel therapies for this aggressive cancer. For instance, SCCUC is a human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated neoplasm. Thus, it remains to be determined whether this approach has any survival benefit. In addition, there are ongoing trials evaluating targeted agents such as gefitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, and thalidomide in SCLC (35). These findings may stimulate the search for, and design of, clinical trials to test targeted therapies for the treatment of SCCUC.

The present study has certain limitations. This is a retrospective analysis and some clinicopathologic information, especially the depth of stromal invasion, was lacking. There is also a paucity of information for some reports regarding postoperative multimodality treatment including sequence, frequency and type of chemotherapeutic agents, which prevent us from making a more detailed analysis. Although it is one of the largest series reported thus far, given these limitations, these findings should be regarded as being preliminary to a large-scale study.

In conclusion, our results indicate that FIGO stage, LNM, and DSI are prognostic factors. Additionally, SU alone should be limited to patients with stage IB1 disease, small tumors and favorable characteristics. Since the current multimodality treatment is not associated with improved survival for patients with early-stage SCCUC, newer combined therapeutic protocols and newer effective multi-agent chemotherapy should be evaluated.

References

1 

Chan JK, Loizzi V, Burger RA, Rutgers J and Monk BJ: Prognostic factors in neuroendocrine small cell cervical carcinoma: A multivariate analysis. Cancer. 97:568–574. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Lee JM, Lee KB, Nam JH, et al: Prognostic factors in FIGO stage IB-IIA small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated surgically: Results of a multi-center retrospective Korean study. Ann Oncol. 19:321–326. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Viswanathan AN, Deavers MT, Jhingran A, Ramirez PT, Levenback C and Eifel PJ: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: outcome and patterns of recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 93:27–33. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Tsunoda S, Jobo T, Arai M, et al: Small-cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: A clincopathologic study of 11 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 15:295–300. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Chen J, MacDonald OK and Gaffney DK: Incidence, mortality, and prognostic factors of small cell carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 111:1394–1402. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Lee SW, Nam JH, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim KR, Kim YM and Kim YT: Unfavorable prognosis of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a retrospective matched case-control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 20:411–416. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Abeler VM, Holm R, Nesland JM and Kjorstad KE: Small cell carcinoma of the cervix: a clinicopathologic study of 26 patients. Cancer. 73:672–677. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Sheets EE, Berman ML, Hrountas CK, Liao SY and DiSaia PJ: Surgically treated, early-stage neuroendocrine small-cell cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 71:10–14. 1998.

9 

Sevin BU, Method MW, Nadji M, Lu Y and Averette HA: Efficacy of radical hysterectomy as treatment for patients with small cell carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 77:1489–1493. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Albores-Saavedra J, Gersell D, Gilks CB, et al: Terminology of endocrine tumors of the uterine cervix: results of a workshop sponsored by the College of American Pathologists and the National Cancer Institute. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 121:34–39. 1997.

11 

O’Hanlan KA, Goldberg GL, Jones JG, Runowicz CD, Ehrlich L and Rodriguez-Rodriguez L: Adjuvant therapy for neuroendocrine small cell carcinoma of the cervix: review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 43:167–172. 1991.PubMed/NCBI

12 

Morris M, Gershenson DM, Eifel P, et al: Treatment of small cell carcinoma of the cervix with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and etoposide. Gynecol Oncol. 47:62–65. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Hoskins PJ, Wong F, Swenerton KD, et al: Small cell carcinoma of the cervix treated with concurrent radiotherapy, cisplatin, and etoposide. Gynecol Oncol. 56:218–225. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Kim YB, Barbuto D, Lagasse LD and Karlan BY: Successful treatment of neuroendocrine small cell carcinoma of the cervix metastatic to regional lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 62:411–414. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Wang PH, Liu YC, Lai CR, Chao HT, Yuan CC and Yu KJ: Small cell carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of clinical and pathological findings. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 19:189–192. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

16 

Sykes AJ, Shanks JH and Davidson SE: Small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinicopathological review. Int J Oncol. 14:381–386. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Lim FK, Chong SM and Sethi V: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix with involvement of multiple pelvic nodes: a successfully treated case by multimodal approach. Gynecol Oncol. 72:246–249. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Chang TC, Hsueh S, Lai CH, et al: Phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage small cell cervical cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 10:641–646. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Delaloge S, Pautier P, Kerbrat P, et al: Neuroendocrine small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: what disease? what treatment? Report of ten cases and a review of the literature. Clin Oncol. 12:357–362. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Collinet P, Lanvin D, Declerck D, Chevalier-Place A, Leblanc E and Querleu D: Neuroendocrine tumors of the uterine cervix clinicopathologic study of five patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 91:51–57. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Straughn JM Jr, Richter HE, Conner MG, Meleth S and Barnes MN: Predictors of outcome in small cell carcinoma of the cervix: a case series. Gynecol Oncol. 83:216–220. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Ohwada M, Suzuki M, Hironaka M, Irie T and Sato I: Neuroendocrine small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix showing polypoid growth and complicated by pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 81:117–119. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Boruta DM, Schorge JO, Duska LA, Crum CP, Castrillon DH and Sheets EE: Multimodality therapy in early-stage neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 81:82–87. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Kim Y, Ha HJ, Kim JS, et al: Significance of cytologic smears in the diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 46:637–644. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Trinh XB, Bogers JJ, van Marck EA and Tjalma WA: Treatment policy of neuroendocrine small cell cancer of the cervix. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 25:40–44. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

26 

Masumoto N, Fujii T, Ishikawa M, et al: P16 overexpression and human papillomavirus infection in small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Human Pathol. 34:778–783. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Petru E, Pasterk C, Reich O, Obermair A, Winter R and Breitenecker G: Small-cell carcinoma of the uterus and the vagina: experience with ten patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 271:316–319. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Korcum AF, Aksu G, Bozcuk H, Pestereli E and Simsek T: Small cell carcinoma of the cervix: a case report. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 277:367–370. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Kim MJ, Kim NR, Cho HY, Lee SP and Ha SY: Differential diagnostic features of small cell carcinoma in the uterine cervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 36:618–623. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Puig F, Rodrigo C, Munoz G and Lanzon R: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: report of two cases. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 30:321–322. 2009.PubMed/NCBI

31 

Chang TC, Lai CH, Tseng CJ, Hsueh S, Huang KG and Chou HH: Prognostic factors in surgically treated small cell cervical carcinoma followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 83:712–718. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Huang CY, Chen YL, Chu TC, Cheng WF, Hsieh CY and Lin MC: Prognostic factors in women with early stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Oncol Res. 18:279–286. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Zivanovic O, Leitao MM Jr, Park KJ, et al: Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: analysis of outcome, recurrence pattern and the impact of platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 112:590–593. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar

34 

Pazdur R, Bonomi P, Slayton R, et al: Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: implications for staging and therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 12:120–128. 1981. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Rossi A, Maione P, Palazzolo G, et al: New targeted therapies and small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 9:271–279. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January 2012
Volume 3 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Tian WJ, Zhang MQ and Shui RH: Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in early‑stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Oncol Lett 3: 125-130, 2012
APA
Tian, W.J., Zhang, M.Q., & Shui, R.H. (2012). Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in early‑stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Oncology Letters, 3, 125-130. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.439
MLA
Tian, W. J., Zhang, M. Q., Shui, R. H."Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in early‑stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix". Oncology Letters 3.1 (2012): 125-130.
Chicago
Tian, W. J., Zhang, M. Q., Shui, R. H."Prognostic factors and treatment comparison in early‑stage small cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix". Oncology Letters 3, no. 1 (2012): 125-130. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2011.439