Fertility-sparing treatment with conization versus radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: inverse propensity score weighted analysis

Objective: To report 20 years of experience with fertility-sparing surgery for patients with early-stage cervical cancer, comparing the oncological outcomes with outcomes for those who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Methods: Patients with pre-operative stage IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer (any grade) were included (2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system). Inclusion criteria comprised age (18-44 years), histology (squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous) and absence of previous/concomitant cancer. A thorough counseling about oncological and obstetrical potential risks was mandatory for patients asking for fertility sparing. Results for consecutive patients who underwent fertility-sparing surgery (cervical conization and nodal evaluation) were analyzed and compared with results for patients treated with radical surgery. Oncological outcomes were assessed with a propensity score adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Overall, 109 patients were included in the study. Ten patients abandoned the fertility-sparing route because of nodal involvement (n=5), margin positive (n=2), or because patients requested radical treatment (n=3). Sentinel node mapping was performed in 19 of 49 (38.8%) patients in the fertility-sparing surgery group. Among the patients in the fertility-sparing group, 6 (12.2%) patients relapsed. 34 (69.4%) patients attempted to conceive. Pre-operative covariates selected to define the probability of having either fertility-sparing or radical surgery were well balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Pathological features were similar between the groups, including grading, histotype, stage, and lymphovascular space invasion. After a median follow-up of 38.8 (range 5-186) months there were no differences in progression-free survival (p=0.32) and overall survival (p=0.74) between the fertility-sparing and radical hysterectomy groups. The results after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment did not show significant differences in progression-free survival (p=0.72) and overall survival (p=0.71) between the groups. Conclusion: Fertility-sparing surgery based on conization plus laparoscopic lymph node evaluation, may be considered safe and effective for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.