• Antonio D'Amato, Gaetano Riemma, Vittorio Agrifoglio, Vito Chiantera, Antonio Simone Laganà, Mislav Mikuš, Miriam Dellino, Annamaria Maglione, Raffaele Faioli, Andrea Giannini, Giuseppe Trojano, and Andrea Etrusco.
• Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine (DIM), University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Policlinico of Bari, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy.
• Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Apr 6; 60 (4).

AbstractBackground and Objectives: Despite advancements in detection and treatment, cervical cancer remains a significant health concern, particularly among young women of reproductive age. Limited data exists in the literature regarding fertility-sparing treatment (FST) of cervical cancers with tumor sizes greater than 2 cm. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of women diagnosed with cervical cancer greater than 2 cm who underwent FST. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register), the Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science. Only original studies (retrospective or prospective) that reported reproductive outcomes of patients with cervical cancer >2 cm were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review (CRD42024521964). Studies describing only the oncologic outcomes, involving FST for cervical cancers less than 2 cm in size, and case reports were excluded. Results: Seventeen papers that met the abovementioned inclusion criteria were included in the present systematic review. In total, 443 patients with a cervical cancer larger than 2 cm were included in this systematic review. Eighty pregnancies occurred, with 24 miscarriages and 54 live births. Conclusions: FST appears to be a viable option for women of childbearing age diagnosed with cervical cancer larger than 2 cm. However, careful consideration is advised in interpreting these encouraging results, as they are subject to limitations, such as variability in study designs and potential biases. In addition, reproductive outcomes should be further cross-referenced with oncologic outcomes to clarify the potential risk-benefit ratio. It is critical to conduct further research using standardized approaches and larger participant groups to strengthen the validity of the conclusions drawn.

14 keywords...

hide…