Treatment options in recurrent cervical cancer (Review)

  • Authors:
    • Angiolo Gadducci
    • Roberta Tana
    • Stefania Cosio
    • Luca Cionini
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: January 1, 2010     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000001
  • Pages: 3-11
Metrics: HTML 0 views | PDF 0 views     Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations

Abstract

The management of recurrent cervical cancer depends mainly on previous treatment and on the site and extent of recurrence. Concurrent cisplatin-based chemo-radiation is the treatment of choice for patients with pelvic failure after radical hysterectomy alone. However, the safe delivery of high doses of radiotherapy is much more difficult in this clinical setting compared with primary radiotherapy. Pelvic exenteration usually represents the only therapeutic approach with curative intent for women with central pelvic relapse who have previously received irradiation. In a recent series, the 5-year overall survival and operative mortality after pelvic exenteration ranged from 21 to 61% and from 1 to 10%, respectively. Free surgical margins, negative lymph nodes, small tumour size and long disease-free interval were associated with a more favourable prognosis. Currently, pelvic reconstructive procedures (continent urinary conduit, low colorectal anastomosis, vaginal reconstruction with myocutaneous flaps) are strongly recommended after exenteration. Concurrent cisplatin-based chemo-radiation is the treatment of choice for isolated para-aortic lymph node failure, with satisfactory chances of a cure in asymptomatic patients. Chemotherapy is administered with palliative intent to women with distant or loco-regional recurrences not amenable by surgery or radiotherapy. Cisplatin is the most widely used drug, with a response rate of 17-38% and a median overall survival of 6.1-7.1 months. Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy achieves higher response rates (22-68%) when compared with single-agent cisplatin, but median overall survival is usually less than one year. In a recent Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trial the combination topotecan + cisplatin obtained a significantly longer overall survival than single-agent cisplatin in patients with metastatic or recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. A subsequent GOG study showed a trend in terms of longer overall survival and better quality of life for the doublet cisplatin + paclitaxel vs. the doublets cisplatin + topotecan, cisplatin + vinorelbine, and cisplatin + gemcitabine. Molecularly targeted therapy may represent a novel therapeutic tool, but its use alone or in combination with chemotherapy is still investigational.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer is the second most common malignancy in women with an estimated 493,000 new cases and 274,000 deaths in 2002 (1). Although radical surgery and radiotherapy represent effective treatment modalities, up to one third of patients will develop progressive or recurrent tumours, the pelvis being the most common site of failure (24). The relapse rate of cervical cancer ranges between 11 and 22% in FIGO stages Ib–IIa and between 28 and 64% in FIGO stages IIb–IVa (5).

The management of recurrent cervical cancer depends mainly on previous treatment and on the site and extent of recurrence (35). Up to 70% of patients receive pelvic radiotherapy at some point in their treatment, and tumour failure in an irradiated pelvis is usually associated with a dismal prognosis. Cervical cancer recurrences can be central pelvic, lateral pelvic and extra-pelvic (6,7). Central pelvic recurrence develops from the cervix and vagina after primary radiotherapy or from the vaginal cuff and central scar after radical hysterectomy. This relapse can be limited to the vaginal vault or can more often involve the bladder and/or rectum. Lateral pelvic recurrence includes parietal and visceral pelvic side disease. The former consists of pelvic lymph node metastases and is usually located above the level of the obturator nerve, whereas the latter originates from the paracervix or from scars of the paracervical resection and is placed below the obturator nerve. The most common extra-pelvic metastases involve para-aortic lymph nodes, lungs, liver and bone (810).

An Italian multicenter retrospective study including 327 consecutive women with recurrent cervical cancer showed that 120 patients (36.7%) had recurrent disease in the central pelvis, 67 (20.5%) on the vaginal vault, 31 (9.5%) in the lateral pelvis, 16 (4.9%) in lymph nodes, 79 (24%) in distant sites and 14 patients (4.3%) both in distant sites and in the pelvis (10).

2. Central or lateral pelvic recurrence in patients primarily treated with radical hysterectomy without adjuvant irradiation

Irradiation or concurrent cisplatin-based chemo-radiation is the treatment of choice for patients with pelvic recurrence after radical hysterectomy alone (3,4,1118). However, the safe delivery of high doses of radiotherapy is much more difficult in this clinical setting compared with primary radiotherapy, since brachytherapy options are limited to treatment of the vaginal vault alone and since the presence of post-surgical adhesions increases the radiation dose to the bowel (19,20). Data from the literature report 5-year survival rates ranging from 6 to 77%, mainly dependent on the site of relapse (4,13). In the series of Ijaz et al (13), patients with vaginal recurrence or paravaginal extension without pelvic wall involvement had a 5-year survival of 69 vs. 18% for those with central recurrence with pelvic wall extension. Similarly, in the study of Jain et al (17) the 5-year disease-specific survival was 55.4% for women with a vault relapse and 12.5% for those with lymph node recurrence. Vaginal vault relapse, which can be managed with external irradiation plus brachytherapy, is more effectively treated than nodal disease which receives external irradiation alone. Moreover, lymph node metastases can be often associated with a systemic spreading of disease.

An important novel treatment modality is represented by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) that can allow the delivery of differential doses of radiation to a given target volume. Mundt et al (21) delivered pelvic IMRT to 15 women with cervical or endometrial cancer, with excellent target volume coverage, considerable sparing of normal tissues, and less acute gastrointestinal sequaelae compared with conventional pelvic irradiation. Clinical investigation on IMRT combined with chemotherapy is strongly warranted to attempt better control of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer (17).

3. Central pelvic recurrence in patients who previously received irradiation

Radical hysterectomy has been sometimes employed in patients with small persistent/recurrent cervical cancer after primary radiotherapy, with 5-year survival rates ranging from 27 to 72% and with a high rate of complications (2227). Rubin et al (23) reassessed 21 radical hysterectomies performed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for recurrent cervical cancer. Two patients (9.5%) died after surgery due to sepsis, 10 (48%) developed postoperative fistulas, and 13 (62%) survived with a median follow-up of 73 months. The disease relapsed in none of the 11 women with tumour diameter ≤2 cm at the time of surgery and in 7 (70%) of the 10 patients with larger tumour size. In the study of Coleman et al (26), 42% of the 50 patients experienced severe complications, mainly represented by urinary tract injuries, and the 5- and 10-year actuarial survival rates were 72 and 60%, respectively. Tumour size at the time of radical hysterectomy was significantly related to the clinical outcome; the 5-year actuarial survival was 90% for women with a lesion diameter <2 cm compared with 64% for those with larger lesions (p<0.01). All 5 patients with lymph node metastases died of disease after a median interval of 13 months from surgery. Maneo et al (27) reassessed 34 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for persistent or recurrent disease after primary radiotherapy. Grade III-IV complications occurred in 15 (44%) cases; in detail, 5 (15%) patients experienced a fistula. Actuarial 5-year survival was 49% for the entire group, 65% for patients with FIGO stage Ib–IIa primary disease, no preoperative clinical parametrial involvement, and recurrent/persistent tumour ≤4 cm, vs. 24% for those who did not fit these criteria (p=0.01). Therefore, radical hysterectomy should be taken into consideration only in highly selected cases, with small persistent/recurrent lesions limited to the cervix.

Pelvic exenteration usually represents the only therapeutic approach with curative intent for patients with central pelvic failure who have previously received irradiation. The original classification of pelvic exenteration into three groups, i.e., anterior, posterior and total, addresses only the nature of the pelvic viscera removed. Magrina et al (28,29) and Chiva et al (30) have suggested a new subclassification into type I (supralevator), type II (infralevator) and type III (with vulvectomy), which takes the levator ani muscle as a reference point and which offers a better definition of the extent of resection and the anatomical changes associated with each operation. From 1950 to 1970 pelvic exenteration achieved 5-year overall survival rates of 20–42% for patients who had no other therapeutic options (3136). However, operative mortality ranged from 10 to 26%, and severe complications were very frequent. Patients usually underwent an incontinent Bricker ileal conduit as a urinary diversion and a terminal colostomy. The more stringent the patient selection criteria (central disease, no para-aortic involvement, no peritoneal disease), the greater the chance for a favourable clinical outcome (30).

In more recent series, the 5-year overall survival and operative mortality ranged from 21 to 73% and from 1 to 10%, respectively (29,3743). Free surgical margins (3739,41,43), negative lymph nodes (35,37,43), small tumour size (38) and long disease-free interval (3739) were associated with a more favourable prognosis. For example, Marnitz et al (39) reported that survival correlated with the disease-free interval (5-year survival of 16.8, 28 and 83.2% for an interval <2 years, 2–5 years and >5 years, respectively; p=0.01) as well as with the status of surgical margins (2-year survival of 10.2% for positive margins vs. 5-year survival of 55.2% for negative ones; p=0.006). Fleisch et al (43) reported that the 5-year survival was 42% for patients with complete resection, no lymph node involvement and no sidewall infiltration vs. 12% for those who did not have one or more of these findings. According to Shingleton et al (38) the best candidates for cure by pelvic exenteration were the patients with recurrent small (<3 cm), mobile central tumours and with a disease-free interval of one year or longer.

Morley et al (37) found that the 5-year survival was 73% for patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 22% for those with adenocarcinoma, whereas other authors failed to detect a significant difference in the clinical outcome according to the histological type (39,40,42).

The clinical improvements obtained in the last decades are mainly due to better surgical techniques, more intensive postoperative care and a better definition of patient selection criteria made easier by the availability of new diagnostic techniques (4450). Currently, positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) should be the first imaging technique used to rule out the presence of extra-pelvic disease (50). Distant metastases, with very few exceptions, exclude a chance of cure, whereas regional metastases significantly decrease but, especially if in a low number, do not completely abolish a curative therapeutic option (6,51).

However, despite a very thorough preoperative investigation, inoperable disease is often detected at the time of laparotomy. Some authors have proposed the use of laparoscopy in screening suitable candidates for exenteration (47,52,53). This approach can prevent unnecessary laparotomies, shorten the hospital stay and the postoperative recovery and contribute to a better quality of life for women with inoperable disease.

At present, pelvic reconstructive procedures are strongly recommended after exenteration. An ileocolonic segment is currently employed for continent urinary diversion (5459). The continent cutaneous reservoir, which uses the terminal ileum or the appendix as an outlet, avoids the need for a urostomy appliance, protects the upper urinary tract and allows relatively easy emptying by intermittent catheterisation, with effective day and night continence. However, continent urinary diversion is not free from postoperative complications. Among 77 patients who underwent the creation of the Miami urinary pouch, the most common complications were ureteral stricture/obstruction (22%), difficult catheterisation (20%) and pyelonephritis (17%) (58).

The patients who undergo a supralevator pelvic exenteration are candidates for a low colorectal anastomosis by staple devices which avoids a colostomy and significantly improves the quality of life. However this surgical procedure may have some risks in irradiated patients (41,59,60). In the series of Angioli et al (58), 33% of the irradiated patients developed anastomotic breakdown or fistula, whereas these complications occurred only in 7.5% of the nonirradiated patients, and a protective colostomy failed to improve the healing rate of the anastomosis. A temporary ileostomy could be taken into consideration since it protects both colorectal anastomosis and the small bowel anastomosis that closes the donor area for the urinary conduit (30).

Pelvic floor and vaginal reconstruction with myocutaneous flaps are frequently proposed in order to reduce postoperative complications and especially gastro-intestinal fistulas, to preserve the psychosocial well-being of the woman and sexual activity, and to improve the quality of life (40,6163). Goldberg et al (40) reported that 20 out of 36 patients (56%) who had vaginal reconstruction with vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps were sexually active.

Intra-operative irradiation therapy (IORT) can be added particularly in the presence of microscopically positive margins on frozen-section analysis (3,64,65). Different ways of delivering IORT have been proposed, from external beam irradiation to high-dose-rate intraoperative brachytherapy and even to delayed brachytherapy after placement of low-dose-rate vectors after surgery (66).

4. Lateral pelvic recurrence in patients who previously received irradiation

Patients with recurrent cervical cancer involving the pelvic side wall are traditionally unfit for exenteration and usually receive palliative chemotherapy when the primary therapy was (chemo-) radiation or surgery plus adjuvant irradiation.

Höckel has proposed a novel surgical approach for these patients, termed laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) (67). This operation is characterized by the inclusion of the internal iliac vessel system, endopelvic part of the obturator internus muscle, coccygeus, ilio-coccygeus and pubo-coccygeus muscles at the side of tumour fixation into the exenteration specimen. This complex surgical procedure is not adequate for visceral pelvic side disease involving the larger sciatic foramen and for all forms of parietal pelvic side disease. Other criteria of patient selection for LEER include age <70 years, no significant comorbidity or mental illness, good performance status, a strong indication that local tumour control may have a chance to cure the patient or at least to prolong her life, and a high probability that the resection of the tumour with negative lateral surgical margins is achievable. Moreover, tumour size should be <5 cm, and the disease-free interval from irradiation should be >5 months. Höckel performed the LEER in 100 patients with recurrent or advanced gynaecological tumours, mainly represented by cervical cancer (n=63). Peri-operative mortality was 2%, major iatrogenic morbidity occurred in 70% of the patients, and the 5-year recurrence-free and disease-specific overall survival rates were 62 and 55%, respectively (68).

Lopez-Graniel et al (69) have suggested the use of ‘neoadjuvant’ pre-exenterative chemotherapy for patients with recurrent/persistent disease involving the pelvic wall, with the aim of shrinking the pelvic tumour and allowing a subsequent pelvic exenteration. These authors administered 2–6 (median, 4) cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to 17 women with these characteristics. The 9 patients (53%) who responded to chemotherapy underwent pelvic exenteration and 4 of them obtained a pathological complete response. Major intra- or postoperative complications occurred in 55% of the patients and one woman died due to sepsis 4 months after surgery. The median survival was 11 months for the entire group, 32 months for the patients who underwent exenteration and 3 months for those who did not. It is noteworthy that the median survival of 11 months compares favourably with the median survival of 6–10 months reported in studies using systemic chemotherapy in the palliative setting (6972). Further investigations and randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the therapeutic potential of this treatment modality.

5. Isolated para-aortic recurrence

The incidence of isolated para-aortic recurrence after definitive treatment of cervical cancer ranges from 2 to 12% (7376). The prognosis of this relapse is usually poor, often being associated with a systemic spread of disease (74,75,77). Grisby et al reported that 20 women with this recurrence received external irradiation on the para-aortic lymph nodes and all died within 2 years (74). The median survival was related to the disease-free interval (7.5 months for the patients who failed within 2 years vs. 17.8 months for those who failed later; p=0.09) and to the irradiation dose (14.2 months for a dose >45 Gy vs. 7.1 months for a lower dose; p=0.004). However, according to recent data, concurrent chemo-radiation appears to yield a good clinical outcome especially in asymptomatic patients with an isolated para-aortic failure detected by CT or PET/CT (7577). Chou et al (75) reported a 5-year overall survival of 51.2% for 14 women treated with concurrent chemo-radiation vs. 0% for the 5 women treated with irradiation alone or chemotherapy alone. Singh et al (76) reassessed the clinical reports of 14 cervical cancer patients with isolated para-aortic relapse. The 7 symptomatic patients, with one or more of the classic clinical findings of para-aortic recurrence (lower extremity oedema, sciatic pain and hydronephrosis) died of disease within 1.5 years of completing salvage therapy, whereas the 7 asymptomatic patients treated with irradiation (45–50.4 Gy) and concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2/week) had a 5-year overall survival of 100% (p<0.01).

6. Distant recurrence or loco-regional recurrence not amenable by surgery or radiotherapy

The role of chemotherapy in this clinical setting is only palliative, and its administration is affected by several factors, such as decreased bone marrow function due to prior irradiation, limited drug distribution in previously irradiated tissues, and renal dysfunction due to ureteral obstruction (78).

Cisplatin is the most widely used drug, with a response rate of 17–38% and a median overall survival of 6.1–7.1 months (7984). Potter et al (84) reported that chest metastases were more likely to respond to cisplatin than pelvic failures (73 vs. 21%, p=0.0007), although the site of relapse did not significantly affect survival. A Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) randomised trial compared 50 mg/m2 of cisplatin vs. 100 mg/m2 vs. 20 mg/m2, days 1–5 every 3 weeks in 497 patients (80). The response rates were 20.7, 31.4 and 25.0%, respectively, the median progression-free interval ranged from 3.7 to 4.6 months and the median overall survival ranged from 6.1 to 7.1 months. Cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 single dose achieved a higher response rate than cisplatin at a dose of 50 mg/m2 (p=0.015), without any improvement in the clinical outcome and with a greater haematological toxicity and nephrotoxicity. Therefore, 50 mg/m2 is the recommended dose of cisplatin.

Phase II studies with single agents have shown the following response rates: 15–28% for carboplatin (400 mg/m2 every 4 weeks) (8587); 11–33% for ifosfamide (5 g/m2, 24-h infusion every 3 weeks or 1.2–1.5 g/m2, days 1–5 every 4 weeks) (8890); 30% for vindesine (2 mg/m2 on two subsequent days/week) (91); 7–18% for vinorelbine (30 mg/m2/week or 30 mg/m2, days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) (9294); 4.5–8% for gemcitabine (800 mg/m2, days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks) (95,96); 15–31% for paclitaxel (110–250 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) (97100); 9% for docetaxel (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) (101); 13–19% for topotecan (1.5 mg/m2, days 1–5 every 3 weeks) (102,103); 16–21% for irinotecan (125 mg/m2/week for 4 weeks every 6 weeks or 350 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) (104,105); and 15–18% for pemetrexed (500–900 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) (106108). Higher response rates have been reported for lesions in previously unirradiated areas compared with those in irradiated fields. The median overall survival ranged from 4.9 to 11 months, with a median value of 7 months (107).

Combination chemotherapy should include drugs that have demonstrated single-agent activity, non-overlapping toxicity and additive or synergistic activity with no significant increase in toxicity. Phase II-III studies have shown the following response rates: 22–68% for the combination of cisplatin (50–100 mg/m2) + 5-fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2, days 1–5) (109111); 50% for cisplatin (50 mg/m2) + capecetabine (1,000 mg/m2, days 1–14, twice daily) (112); 54% for cisplatin (120 mg/m2) + bleomycin (10 mg/m2, day 1 bolus + 10 mg/m2, days 5–7, continuous infusion) (113); 38–50% for cisplatin (20 mg/m2, days 1–5 or 50 mg/m2, day 1) + ifosfamide (1.5–2.5 g/m2, days 1–5) (114,115); 41–64% for cisplatin (50 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) (116); 59–78% for cisplatin (60 mg/m2) + irinotecan (60 mg/m2, days 1, 8 and 15) (117,118); and 45–47% for cisplatin (75 mg/m2) + paclitaxel (135–175 mg/m2) (119121). These trials have shown an advantage in response rates for cisplatin-based combination regimens when compared with single-agent cisplatin, without any benefit in terms of survival.

A GOG study randomly allocated 294 patients with stage IVb or recurrent or persistent cervical cancer to receive either cisplatin (50 mg/m2) or topotecan (0.75 mg/m2, days 1–3) + cisplatin (50 mg/m2, day 1, every 3 weeks) (122). Combination chemotherapy obtained a higher response rate (27 vs. 13%; p=0.004), a longer median progression-free survival (4.6 vs. 2.9 months; p=0.014) and a longer median overall survival (9.4 vs. 6.5 months; p=0.017), associated with a more frequent grade 3–4 haematological toxicity. This is the first randomised phase III trial demonstrating a survival advantage for combination chemotherapy vs. single-agent cisplatin.

The GOG trial 204 compared the doublets of cisplatin (50 mg/m2, day 2) + paclitaxel (135 mg/m2, 24-h infusion), cisplatin (50 mg/m2, day 1) + vinorelbine (30 mg/m2, days 1 and 8), and cisplatin (50 mg/m2, day 1) + gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) vs. the combination of cisplatin (50 mg/m2, day 1) + topotecan (0.75 mg/m2, days 1–3) every 3 weeks (123,124). There was no significant difference in survival among the different arms, with a trend in favour of a cisplatin + paclitaxel regimen that was also associated with a better quality of life.

Cisplatin-based three- or four-drug regimens have achieved no clear advantage vs. cisplatin-containing doublets or single-agent cisplatin in terms of clinical outcome in patients with persistent or recurrent cervical cancer (125130). The combination of ifosfamide (5 g/m2, 24-h infusion) + paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) + cisplatin (75 mg/m2) (TIP regimen) obtained a significantly higher pathological optimal response rate when compared with the combination of ifosfamide (5 g/m2, 24-h infusion) + cisplatin (75 mg/m2) in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy (131). However, three phase II trials have reported response rates of 46–67% for TIP in patients with recurrent or persistent disease, similar to those obtained with cisplatin-containing doublets (127129).

Resection of isolated metastases can sometimes represent a reasonable option in accurately selected patients, particularly in those with solitary inguinal or lung metastases (132,133).

Molecularly -targeted therapy will hopefully offer new treatment options for patients with advanced, persistent or recurrent cervical cancer. In a phase II GOG trial, bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) was administered every 3 weeks to 46 women with persistent or recurrent disease (134). Eleven patients (24%) survived progression-free for at least 6 months, and 5 patients (11%) had partial responses. The GOG has recently designed a bifactorial-randomized trial introducing for the first time a non-platinum doublet (paclitaxel + topotecan) and bevacizumab compared with cisplatin + paclitaxel (135).

Bellone et al found that 14 out of 14 (100%) primary cervical cancer cell lines from cervical biopsies and recurrent sites of disease, as well as 7 out of 8 (87.5%) established cervical cancer cell lines expressed epidermal growth factor receptor-1 (136). Minimal complement-dependent cytotoxicity was detected in the majority of cell lines exposed to complement ± cetuximab in the absence of peripheral blood lymphocytes. In contrast, cell lines were highly sensitive to cetuximab-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity when challenged with peripheral blood lymphocytes from either healthy donors or cervical cancer patients. Gefitinib obtained no objective response but achieved a stabilization of disease in 20% out of 30 patients with recurrent cervical cancer resistant to standard treatment (137). Two GOG trials [GOG-227E (cetuximab) and GOG-76D (cetuximab + cisplatin)] are currently assessing the role of cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (138).

7. Conclusions

Recurrent cervical cancer is a difficult challenge for gynecologic oncologists. Patients with central or lateral pelvic failure after surgery alone can be treated with concurrent cisplatin-based chemo-radiation, whereas pelvic exenteration usually represents the only therapeutic option with curative intent for women with central pelvic relapse after irradiation. Concurrent cisplatin-based chemo-radiation is the treatment of choice for isolated para-aortic lymph node recurrence, with satisfactory chances of a cure in asymptomatic patients. Chemotherapy is administered with palliative intent to patients with distant or loco-regional failures not amenable by surgery or irradiation. Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy increases response rates when compared with single-agent cisplatin, but median overall survival is usually shorter than one year. However some cases of unexpected long-term disease-free survival after salvage chemotherapy have been reported in the literature (139,140). In a GOG phase III trial the combination topotecan + cisplatin obtained a significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival when compared with single-agent cisplatin in patients with metastatic or recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. A subsequent GOG study has shown a trend in terms of longer overall survival and better quality of life for the doublet cisplatin + paclitaxel vs. the doublets cisplatin + topotecan, cisplatin + vinorelbine and cisplatin + gemcitabine. Molecular-targeted therapy may represent a novel therapeutic tool, but its use alone or in combination with chemotherapy is still investigational.

References

1 

Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J and Pisani P: Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 55:74–108. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Bellone S, Pecorelli S, Cannon MJ and Santin AD: Advances in dendritic-cell-based therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 7:1473–1486. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Leitao MM and Chi DS: Recurrent cervical cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 3:105–111. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar

4 

Friedlander M: Guidelines for the treatment of recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Oncologist. 7:342–347. 2002.PubMed/NCBI

5 

Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Creasman WT, Heintz APM, Ngan HYS and Pecorelli S: Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 95(Suppl 1): 43–103. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Dornhöfer N and Höckel M: New developments in the surgical therapy of cervical carcinoma. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1138:233–252. 2008.

7 

Höckel M: Pelvic recurrences of cervical cancer. Relapse pattern, prognostic factors and the role of extended radical treatment. J Pelv Surg. 5:255–266. 1999.

8 

Zatoński W and Tyczyński J: Cancer in Poland in 1993. Zakład Epidemiologii i Prewencji Nowotworów. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów; Warszawa: pp. 22–41. 1996

9 

Panek G, Gawrychowski K, Sobiczewski P, Derlatka P, Danska-Bidzinska A, Gmyrek L and Bidzinski M: Results of chemotherapy for pulmonary metastases of carcinoma of the cervix in patients after primary surgical and radiotherapeutic management. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 17:1056–1061. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Zola P, Fuso L, Mazzola S, Piovano E, Perotto S, Gadducci A, Galletto L, Landoni F, Maggino T, Raspagliesi F, Sartori E and Scambia G: Could follow-up different modalities play a role in asymptomatic cervical cancer relapses diagnosis? An Italian multicenter retrospective analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 107(Suppl 1): 150–154. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar

11 

Potter ME, Alvarez RD, Gay FL, Shingleton HM, Soong SJ and Hatch KD: Optimal therapy for pelvic recurrence after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 37:74–77. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Malfetano J, Keys H, Kredentser D, Cunningham M, Kotlove D and Weiss L: Weekly cisplatin and radical radiation therapy for advanced, recurrent and poor prognosis cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 71:3703–3706. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Ijaz T, Eifel PJ, Burke T and Oswald MJ: Radiation therapy of pelvic recurrence after radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 70:241–246. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Smaniotto D, D’Agostino G, Luzi S, Valentini V, Macchia G, Mantini G, Margariti PA, Ferrandina G and Scambia G: Concurrent 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C and radiation with or without brachytherapy in recurrent cervical cancer: a scoring system to predict clinical response and outcome. Tumori. 91:295–301. 2005.

15 

Windschall A, Ott OJ, Sauer R and Strnad V: Radiation therapy and simultaneous chemotherapy for recurrent cervical carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol. 181:545–550. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Miglietta L, Franzone P, Centurioni MG, Boni L, Tacchini L, Cosso M, Boccardo F, Ferrarini M and Bruzzone M: A phase II trial with cisplatin-paclitaxel cytotoxic treatment and concurrent external and endocavitary radiation therapy in locally advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. Oncology. 70:19–24. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar

17 

Jain P, Hunter RD, Livsey JE, Coyle C, Swindell R and Davidson SE: Salvaging locoregional recurrence with radiotherapy after surgery in early cervical cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 19:763–768. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Piura B, Rabinovich A and Friger M: Recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a study of 32 cases. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 29:31–36. 2008.PubMed/NCBI

19 

Barter JF, Soong SJ, Shingleton HM, Hatch KD and Orr JW Jr: Complications of combined radical hysterectomy-postoperative radiation therapy in women with early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 32:292–296. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Magrina JF: Complications of irradiation and radical surgery for gynecologic malignancies. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 48:571–575. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Mundt AJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, Yamada SD, Waggoner SE, Fleming G and Rotmensch J: Initial clinical experience with intensity-modulated whole-pelvis radiation therapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 82:456–463. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Friedell GH, Cesare F and Parson L: Surgical treatment of cancer of the cervix recurring after primary irradiation therapy. N Engl J Med. 264:781–784. 1961. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Rubin SC, Hoskins WJ and Lewis JL: Radical hysterectomy for recurrent cervical cancer following radiation therapy. Gynecol Oncol. 27:316–324. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Terada K and Morley GW: Radical hysterectomy as surgical salvage therapy for gynecologic malignancy. Obstet Gynecol. 70:913–915. 1987.PubMed/NCBI

25 

Rutledge S, Carey MS, Prichard H, Allen HH, Kocha W and Kirk ME: Conservative surgery for recurrent or persistent carcinoma of the cervix following irradiation: is exenteration always necessary? Gynecol Oncol. 52:353–359. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Coleman RL, Keeney ED, Freedman RS, Burke TW, Eifel PJ and Rutledge FN: Radical hysterectomy for recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix after radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 55:29–35. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Maneo A, Landoni F, Cormio G, Colombo A and Mangioni C: Radical hysterectomy for recurrent or persistent cervical cancer following radiation therapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 9:295–301. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Magrina JF: Types of pelvic exenterations: a reappraisal. Gynecol Oncol. 37:363–366. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Magrina JF, Stanhope CR and Weaver AL: Pelvic exenterations: supralevator, infralevator, and with vulvectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 64:130–135. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Chiva LM, Lapuente F, González-Cortijo L, González-Martín A, Rojo A, García JF and Carballo N: Surgical treatment of recurrent cervical cancer: state of the art and new achievements. Gynecol Oncol. 110(Suppl 2): 60–66. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Brunschwig A and Barber HR: Extended pelvic exenteration for advanced cancer of the cervix. Long survivals following added resection of involved small bowel. Cancer. 17:1267–1270. 1964. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Kiselow M, Butcher HR Jr and Bricker EM: Results of the radical surgical treatment of advanced pelvic cancer: a fifteen-year study. Ann Surg. 166:428–436. 1967.PubMed/NCBI

33 

Creasman WT and Rutledge F: Is positive pelvic lymphadenopathy a contraindication to radical surgery in recurrent cervical carcinoma? Gynecol Oncol. 2:482–485. 1974. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Rutledge FN, Smith JP, Wharton JT and O’Quinn AG: Pelvic exenteration: analysis of 296 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 129:881–892. 1977.PubMed/NCBI

35 

Symmonds RE, Pratt JH and Webb MJ: Exenterative operations: experience with 198 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 121:907–918. 1975.PubMed/NCBI

36 

Karlen JR and Piver MS: Reduction of mortality and morbidity associated with pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 3:164–167. 1975. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Morley GW, Hopkins MP, Lindenauer SM and Roberts JA: Pelvic exenteration, University of Michigan: 100 patients at 5 years. Obstet Gynecol. 74:934–943. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

38 

Shingleton HM, Soong SJ, Gelder MS, Hatch KD, Baker VV and Austin JM Jr: Clinical and histopathologic factors predicting recurrence and survival after pelvic exenteration for cancer of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 73:1027–1034. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

39 

Marnitz S, Köhler C, Müller M, Behrens K, Hasenbein K and Schneider A: Indications for primary and secondary exenterations in patients with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 103:1023–1030. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Goldberg GL, Sukumvanich P, Einstein MH, Smith HO, Anderson PS and Fields AL: Total pelvic exenteration: the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Experience (1987 to 2003). Gynecol Oncol. 101:261–268. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Berek JS, Howe C, Lagasse LD and Hacker NF: Pelvic exenteration for recurrent gynecologic malignancy: survival and morbidity analysis of the 45-year experience at UCLA. Gynecol Oncol. 99:153–159. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

42 

Crozier M, Morris M, Levenback C, Lucas KR, Atkinson EN and Wharton JT: Pelvic exenteration for adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 58:74–78. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Fleisch MC, Pantke P, Beckmann MW, Schnuerch HG, Ackermann R, Grimm MO, Bender HG and Dall P: Predictors for long-term survival after interdisciplinary salvage surgery for advanced or recurrent gynecologic cancers. J Surg Oncol. 95:476–484. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Kinkel K, Ariche M, Tardivon AA, Spatz A, Castaigne D, Lhomme C and Vanel D: Differentiation between recurrent tumor and benign conditions after treatment of gynecologic pelvic carcinoma: value of dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology. 204:55–63. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar

45 

Popovich MJ, Hricak H, Sugimura K and Stern JL: The role of MR imaging in determining surgical eligibility for pelvic exenteration. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 160:525–531. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Jeong YY, Kang HK, Chung TW, Seo JJ and Park JG: Uterine cervical carcinoma after therapy: CT and MR imaging findings. Radiographics. 23:969–981. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Elst P, Ahankour F and Tjalma W: Management of recurrent cervical cancer. Review of the literature and case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 28:435–441. 2007.PubMed/NCBI

48 

Husain A, Akhurst T, Larson S, Alektiar K, Barakat RR and Chi DS: A prospective study of the accuracy of 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) in identifying sites of metastasis prior to pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 106:177–180. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Babar S, Rockall A, Goode A, Shepherd J and Reznek R: Magnetic resonance imaging appearances of recurrent cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 17:637–645. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

50 

Jover R, Lourido D, Gonzalez C, Rojo A, Gorospe L and Alfonso JM: Role of PET/CT in the evaluation of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 110(Suppl 2): 55–59. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Höckel M and Dornhöfer N: Pelvic exenteration for gynaecologic tumours: achievements and unanswered questions. Lancet Oncol. 7:837–847. 2006.

52 

Plante M and Roy M: Operative laparoscopy prior to a pelvic exenteration in patients with recurrent cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 69:94–99. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

53 

Kohler C, Tozzi R, Possover M and Schneider A: Explorative laparoscopy prior to exenterative surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 86:311–315. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

54 

Stein P, Daneshmand S, Dunn M, Garcia M, Lieskovsky G and Skinner DG: Continent right colon reservoir using a cutaneous appendicostomy. Urology. 63:577–580. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

55 

Rowland RG and Kropp BP: Evolution of the Indiana continent urinary reservoir. J Urol. 152:2247–2251. 1994.PubMed/NCBI

56 

Bihrle R: The Indiana pouch continent urinary reservoir. Urol Clin North Am. 24:773–779. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

57 

Salom EM, Mendez LE, Schey D, Lambrou N, Kassira N, Gómez-Marn O, Averette H and Peñalver M: Continent ileocolonic urinary reservoir (Miami pouch): the University of Miami experience over 15 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 190:994–1003. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

58 

Angioli R, Benedetti Panici P, Mirhashemi R, Mendez L, Cantuaria G, Basile S and Penalver M: Continent urinary diversion and low colorectal anastomosis after pelvic exenteration. Quality of life and complication risk. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 48:281–285. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

59 

Benedetti Panici P, Angioli R, Plotti F, Muzii L, Zullo MA, Manci N, Palaia I and Galluci M: Continent ileocolonic urinary diversion (Rome pouch) for gynecologic malignancies: technique and feasibility. Gynecol Oncol. 107:194–199. 2007.PubMed/NCBI

60 

Hatch KD, Gelder MS, Soong SJ, Baker VV and Shingleton HM: Pelvic exenteration with low rectal anastomosis: survival, complications, and prognostic factors. Gynecol Oncol. 38:462–467. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

61 

Rietjens M, Maggioni A, Bocciolone L, Sideri M, Youssef O and Petit JY: Vaginal reconstruction after extended radical pelvic surgery for cancer: comparison of two techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 109:1592–1599. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

62 

Green AE, Escobar PF, Neubaurer N, Michener CM and Vongruenigen VE: The Martius flap neovagina revisited. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 15:964–966. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

63 

O’Connell C, Mirhashemi R, Kassira N, Lambrou N and McDonald WS: Formation of functional neovagina with vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) flap after total pelvic exenteration. Ann Plast Surg. 55:470–473. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

64 

Del Carmen MG, McIntyre JF and Goodman A: The role of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) in the treatment of locally advanced gynecologic malignancies. Oncologist. 5:18–25. 2000.PubMed/NCBI

65 

Gemignani ML, Alektiar KM, Leitao M, Mychalczak B, Chi D, Venkatraman E, Barakat RR and Curtin JP: Radical surgical resection and high-dose intraoperative radiation therapy (HDR-IORT) in patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 50:687–694. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

66 

Hicks ML, Piver MS, Mas E, Hempling RE, Mcauley M and Walsh DL: Intraoperative orthovoltage radiation therapy in the treatment of recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Am J Clin Oncol. 16:497–500. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

67 

Höckel M: Laterally extended endopelvic resection: novel surgical treatment of locally recurrent cervical carcinoma involving the pelvic side wall. Gynecol Oncol. 91:369–377. 2003.

68 

Höckel M: Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) – principles and practice. Gynecol Oncol. 111:S13–S17. 2008.

69 

Lopez-Graniel C, Dolores R, Cetina L, Gonzalez A, Cantu D, Chanona J, Uribe J, Candelaria M, Brom R, de la Garza J and Duenas-Gonzalez A: Pre-exenterative chemotherapy, a novel therapeutic approach for patients with persistent or recurrent cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 5:1182005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

70 

Hogg R and Friedlander M: Role of systemic chemotherapy in metastatic cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 3:234–240. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

71 

Tambaro R, Scambia G, di Maio M, Pisano C, Barletta E, Iaffaioli VR and Pignata S: The role of chemotherapy in locally advanced, metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 52:33–44. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

72 

Pectasides D, Kamposioras K, Papaxoinis G and Pectasides E: Chemotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 34:603–613. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

73 

Carl UM, Bahnsen J and Rapp W: Radiation therapy of para-aortic lymph nodes in gynaecologic cancers: techniques, results and complications. Strahlenther Onkol. 168:383–389. 1992.PubMed/NCBI

74 

Grigsby PW, Vest ML and Perez CA: Recurrent carcinoma of the cervix exclusively in the paraaortic nodes following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 28:451–455. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

75 

Chou HH, Wang CC, Lai CH, Hong JH, Ng KK, Chang TC, Tseng CJ, Tsai CS and Chang JT: Isolated paraaortic lymph node recurrence after definitive irradiation for cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 51:442–448. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

76 

Singh AK, Grigsby PW, Rader JS, Mutch DG and Powell MA: Cervix carcinoma, concurrent chemoradiotherapy and salvage of isolated paraaortic lymph node recurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 61:450–455. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

77 

Kim JS, Kim JS, Kim SY, Kim KH and Cho MJ: Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy for para-aortic lymph node recurrence in carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 55:1247–1253. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

78 

DuPont NC and Monk BJ: Chemotherapy in the management of cervical carcinoma. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 4:279–286. 2006.PubMed/NCBI

79 

Thigpen T, Shingleton H, Homesley H, Lagasse L and Blessing J: Cisplatin in treatment of advanced or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer. 48:899–903. 1981. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

80 

Bonomi P, Blessing JA, Stehman FB, DiSaia PJ, Walton L and Major FJ: Randomized trial of three cisplatin dose schedules in squamous-cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 3:1079–1085. 1985.PubMed/NCBI

81 

Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, Fowler WC Jr and Hatch K: Phase II trials of cisplatin and piperazinedione as single agents in the treatment of advanced or recurrent non-squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer Treat Rep. 70:1097–1100. 1986.PubMed/NCBI

82 

Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, DiSaia PJ, Fowler WC Jr and Hatch KD: A randomized comparison of a rapid versus prolonged (24 h) infusion of cisplatin in therapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 32:198–202. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

83 

Lele SB and Piver MS: Weekly cisplatin induction chemotherapy in the treatment of recurrent cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 33:6–8. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

84 

Potter ME, Hatch KD, Potter MY, Shingleton HM and Baker VV: Factors affecting the response of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix to cisplatin. Cancer. 63:1283–1286. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

85 

Arseneau J, Blessing JA, Stehman FB and McGehee R: A phase II study of carboplatin in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study). Invest New Drugs. 4:187–191. 1986.PubMed/NCBI

86 

McGuire WP III, Arseneau J, Blessing JA, DiSaia PJ, Hatch KD, Given FT Jr, Teng NN and Creasman WT: A randomized comparative trial of carboplatin and iproplatin in advanced squamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 7:1462–1468. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

87 

Weiss GR, Green S, Hannigan EV, Boutselis JG, Surwit EA, Wallace DL and Alberts DS: A phase II trial of carboplatin for recurrent or metastatic squamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 39:332–336. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar

88 

Meanwell CA, Mould JJ, Blackledge G, Lawton FG, Stuart NS, Kavanagh J, Latief TN, Spooner D and Chetiyawardana AD: Phase II study of ifosfamide in cervical cancer. Cancer Treat Rep. 70:727–730. 1986.PubMed/NCBI

89 

Sutton GP, Blessing JA, Adcock L, Webster KD and DeEulis T: Phase II study of ifosfamide and mesna in patients with previously-treated carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Invest New Drugs. 7:341–343. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

90 

Sutton GP, Blessing JA, DiSaia PJ and McGuire WP: Phase II study of ifosfamide and mesna in nonsquamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 49:48–50. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

91 

Rhomberg WU: Vindesine for recurrent and metastatic cancer of the uterine cervix: a phase II study. Cancer Treat Rep. 70:1455–1457. 1986.PubMed/NCBI

92 

Morris M, Brader KR, Levenback C, Burke TW, Atkinson EN, Scott WR and Gershenson DM: Phase II study of vinorelbine in advanced and recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 16:1094–1098. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

93 

Lhommé C, Vermorken JB, Mickiewicz E, Chevalier B, Alvarez A, Mendiola C, Pawinski A, Lentz MA and Pecorelli S: Phase II trial of vinorelbine in patients with advanced and/or recurrent cervical carcinoma: an EORTC Gynaecological Cancer Cooperative Group study. Eur J Cancer. 36:194–199. 2000.PubMed/NCBI

94 

Muggia FM, Blessing JA, Waggoner S, Berek JS, Monk BJ, Sorosky J and Pearl ML: Evaluation of vinorelbine in persistent or recurrent nonsquamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 96:108–111. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

95 

Schilder RJ, Blessing JA, Morgan M, Mangan CE and Rader JS: Evaluation of gemcitabine in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the gynecologic oncology group. Gynecol Oncol. 76:204–207. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar

96 

Schilder RJ, Blessing J and Cohn DE: Evaluation of gemcitabine in previously treated patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 96:103–107. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

97 

McGuire WP, Blessing JA, Moore D, Lentz SS and Photopulos G: Paclitaxel has moderate activity in squamous cervix cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 14:792–795. 1996.PubMed/NCBI

98 

Kudelka AP, Winn R, Edwards CL, Downey G, Greenberg H, Dakhil SR, Freedman RS, Loyer E, Rusinkiewicz J, Gacrama P, Fueger R and Kavanagh JJ: Activity of paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent squamous cell cancer of the cervix. Clin Cancer Res. 2:1285–1288. 1996.PubMed/NCBI

99 

Kudelka AP, Winn R, Edwards CL, Downey G, Greenberg H, Dakhil SR, Freedman RS, LoCoco S, Umbreit J, Delmore JE, Arbuck S, Loyer E, Gacrama P, Fueger R and Kavanagh JJ: An update of a phase II study of paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent squamous cell cancer of the cervix. Anticancer Drugs. 8:657–661. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

100 

Curtin JP, Blessing JA, Webster KD, Rose PG, Mayer AR, Fowler WC Jr, Malfetano JH and Alvarez RD: Paclitaxel, an active agent in nonsquamous carcinomas of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 19:1275–1278. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

101 

Garcia AA, Blessing JA, Vaccarello L and Roman LD: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study: phase II clinical trial of docetaxel in refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Am J Clin Oncol. 30:428–431. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

102 

Bookman MA, Blessing JA, Hanjani P, Herzog TJ and Andersen WA: Topotecan in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 77:446–449. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

103 

Muderspach LI, Blessing JA, Levenback C and Moore JL Jr: A Phase II study of topotecan in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 81:213–215. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

104 

Verschraegen CF, Levy T, Kudelka AP, Llerena E, Ende K, Freedman RS, Edwards CL, Hord M, Steger M, Kaplan AL, Kieback D, Fishman A and Kavanagh JJ: Phase II study of irinotecan in prior chemotherapy-treated squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 15:625–631. 1997.PubMed/NCBI

105 

Lhommé C, Fumoleau P, Fargeot P, Krakowski Y, Dieras V, Chauvergne J, Vennin P, Rebattu P, Roche H, Misset JL, Lentz MA, van Glabbeke M, Matthieu-Boué A, Mignard D and Chevallier B: Results of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Early Clinical Studies Group phase II trial of first-line irinotecan in patients with advanced or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 17:3136–3142. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

106 

Goedhals L, van Wiyk AL, Smith BL and Fourie SJ: Pemetrexed (Alimta, LY231514) demonstrates clinical activity in chemonaive patients with cervical cancer in a phase II single-agent trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 16:1172–1178. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar

107 

Miller DS, Blessing JA, Bodurka DC, Bonebrake AJ and Schorge JO: Gynecologic Oncology Group: evaluation of pemetrexed (Alimta, LY231514) as second line chemotherapy in persistent or recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 110:65–70. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

108 

Ferrandina G, Lorusso D, Ludovisi M, Pignata S, Sorio R, Mangili G, Breda E, Legge F, Pisconti S and Scambia G: Phase II study on pemetrexed in advanced/or recurrent cervical cancer patients: a MITO study. J Oncol. 26(Suppl 296): abs. 5515. 2008.

109 

Bonomi P, Blessing J, Ball H, Hanjani P and DiSaia PJ: A phase II evaluation of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 34:357–359. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

110 

Kaern J, Tropé C, Sundfoer K and Kristensen GB: Cisplatin/5-fluorouracil treatment of recurrent cervical carcinoma: a phase II study with long-term follow-up. Gynecol Oncol. 60:387–392. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

111 

Kaern J, Tropé C, Abeler V, Iversen T and Kjørstad K: A phase II study of 5-fluorouracil/cisplatinum in recurrent cervical cancer. Acta Oncol. 29:25–28. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

112 

Benjapibal M, Thirapakawong C, Leelaphatanadit C, Therasakvichya S and Inthasorn P: A pilot phase II study of capecitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Oncology. 72:33–38. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

113 

Daghestani N, Hakes TB, Lynch G and Lewis JL Jr: Cervix carcinoma: treatment with combination cisplatin and bleomycin. Gynecol Oncol. 16:334–339. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

114 

Coleman RE, Clarke JM, Slevin ML, Sweetenham J, Williams CJ, Blake P, Calman F, Wiltshaw E and Harper PG: A phase II study of ifosfamide and cisplatin chemotherapy for metastatic or relapsed carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 27:52–54. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

115 

Cervellino JC, Araujo CE, Sánchez O, Miles H and Nishihama A: Cisplatin and ifosfamide in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. A phase II trial. Acta Oncol. 34:257–259. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

116 

Burnett AF, Roman LD, Garcia AA, Muderspach LI, Brader KR and Morrow CP: A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced, persistent, or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 76:63–66. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

117 

Sugiyama T, Nishida T, Kumagai S, Nishio S, Fujiyoshi K, Okura N, Yakushiji M, Hiura M and Umesaki N: Combination therapy with irinotecan and cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. Br J Cancer. 81:95–98. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

118 

Sugiyama T, Yakushiji M, Noda K, Ikeda M, Kudoh R, Yajima A, Tomoda Y, Terashima Y, Takeuchi S, Hiura M, Saji F, Takahashi T, Umesaki N, Sato S, Hatae M and Ohashi Y: Phase II study of irinotecan and cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent cervical cancer. Oncology. 58:31–37. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

119 

Rose PG, Blessing JA, Gershenson DM and McGehee R: Paclitaxel and cisplatin as first-line therapy in recurrent or advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 17:2676–2680. 1999.

120 

Papadimitriou CA, Sarris K, Moulopoulos LA, Fountzilas G, Anagnostopoulos A, Voulgaris Z, Gika D, Giannakoulis N, Diakomanolis E and Dimopoulos MA: Phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin in metastatic and recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Clin Oncol. 17:761–766. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

121 

Piver MS, Ghamande SA, Eltabbakh GH and O’Neill-Coppola C: First-line chemotherapy with paclitaxel and platinum for advanced and recurrent cancer of the cervix – a phase II study. Gynecol Oncol. 75:334–337. 1999.

122 

Long HJ III, Bundy BN, Grendys EC Jr, Benda JA, McMeekin DS, Sorosky J, Miller DS, Eaton LA and Fiorica JV: Randomized phase III trial of cisplatin with or without topotecan in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 23:4626–4633. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

123 

Monk BJ, Sill MW, McMeekin SD, Cohn DE, Ramondetta LM, Boardman CH and Benda J: A randomized phase III trial of four cisplatin (CIS) containing doublet combinations in stage IVb, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study. J Clin Oncol. 26(Suppl 294): abs. LBA 5504. 2008.

124 

Wenzel LN, Huang H, Cella D, Monk BJ, Sill MW, McMeekin SD, Cohn DE, Ramondetta LM, Boardman CH and Benda J: Quality-of-life results of a randomized phase III trial of four cisplatin (Cis) containing doublet combinations in stage Ivb cervical carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study. J Clin Oncol. 26(Suppl 300): abs. 5529. 2008.

125 

Bloss JD, Blessing JA, Behrens BC, Mannel RS, Rader JS, Sood AK, Markman M and Benda J: Randomized trial of cisplatin and ifosfamide with or without bleomycin in squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 20:1832–1837. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

126 

Cadron I, Jakobsen A and Vergote I: Report of an early stopped randomized trial comparing cisplatin vs. cisplatin/ifosfamide/ 5-fluorouracil in recurrent cervical cancer. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 59:126–129. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

127 

Zanetta G, Fei F, Parma G, Balestrino M, Lissoni A, Gabriele A and Mangioni C: Paclitaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin (TIP) chemotherapy for recurrent or persistent squamous-cell cervical cancer. Ann Oncol. 10:1171–1174. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

128 

Dimopoulos MA, Papadimitriou CA, Sarris K, Aravantinos G, Kalofonos C, Gika D, Gourgoulis GM, Efstathiou E, Skarlos D and Bafaloukos D: Combination of ifosfamide, paclitaxel, and cisplatin for the treatment of metastatic and recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 85:476–482. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

129 

Choi CH, Kim TJ, Lee SJ, Lee JW, Kim BG, Lee JH and Bae DS: Salvage chemotherapy with a combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin for the patients with recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 16:1157–1164. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

130 

Van Luijk IF, Coens C, van der Burg ME, Kobierska A, Namer M, Lhomme C, Zola P, Zanetta G and Vermorken JB; Gynecological Cancer Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Phase II study of bleomycin, vindesine, mitomycin C and cisplatin (BEMP) in recurrent or disseminated squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Ann Oncol. 18:275–281. 2007.

131 

Buda A, Fossati R, Colombo N, Fei F, Floriani I, Gueli Alletti D, Katsaros D, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Malzoni C, Sartori E, Scollo P, Torri V, Zola P and Mangioni C: Randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy comparing paclitaxel, ifosfamide and cisplatin with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the SNAP01 (Studio Neo-Adjuvante Portio) Italian Collaborative Study. J Clin Oncol. 23:4137–4145. 2005.

132 

Mourton SM, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Bochner BH, Barakat RR and Chi DS: Resection of recurrent cervical cancer after total pelvic exenteration. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 17:137–140. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

133 

Bodurka-Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ, Levenback C, Bevers MW, Lucas KR and Wharton JT: Posttherapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer: an outcome analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 78:187–193. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

134 

Monk BJ, Sill MW, Burger RA, Gray HJ, Buekers TE and Roman LD: Phase II trial of bevacizumab in the treatment of persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 27:1069–1074. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

135 

Coleman RL; Gynecologic Oncology Group’s. The Gynecologic Oncology Group’s role in the treatment of recurrent cervix cancer: current clinical trials. Gynecol Oncol. 110(Suppl 2): 77–80. 2008.

136 

Bellone S, Frera G, Landolfi G, Romani C, Bandiera E, Tognon G, Roman JJ, Burnett AF, Pecorelli S and Santin AD: Overexpression of epidermal growth factor type-1 receptor (EGF-R1) in cervical cancer: implications for Cetuximab-mediated therapy in recurrent/metastatic disease. Gynecol Oncol. 106:513–520. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar

137 

Goncalves A, Fabbro M, Lhommé C, Gladieff L, Extra JM, Floquet A, Chaigneau L, Carrasco AT and Viens P: A phase II trial to evaluate gefitinib as second- or third-line treatment in patients with recurring locoregionally advanced or metastatic cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 108:42–46. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

138 

Del Campo JM, Prat A, Gil-Moreno A, Pérez J and Parera M: Update on novel therapeutic agents for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 110(Suppl 2): 72–76. 2008.PubMed/NCBI

139 

Hindenburg AA and Matthews L: Complete and sustained remission of refractory cervical cancer following a single cycle of capecitabine. A case report. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 13:898–900. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

140 

Khoury-Collado F, Bowes RJ, Jhamb N, Aghajanian C and Abu-Rustum NR: Unexpected long-term survival without evidence of disease after salvage chemotherapy for recurrent metastatic cervical cancer: a case series. Gynecol Oncol. 105:823–825. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January 2010
Volume 1 Issue 1

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

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Gadducci, A., Tana, R., Cosio, S., & Cionini, L. (2010). Treatment options in recurrent cervical cancer (Review) . Oncology Letters, 1, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000001
MLA
Gadducci, A., Tana, R., Cosio, S., Cionini, L."Treatment options in recurrent cervical cancer (Review) ". Oncology Letters 1.1 (2010): 3-11.
Chicago
Gadducci, A., Tana, R., Cosio, S., Cionini, L."Treatment options in recurrent cervical cancer (Review) ". Oncology Letters 1, no. 1 (2010): 3-11. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol_00000001