Scientific publications

SUCCOR cone study: conization before radical hysterectomy. Scientific Publication

Jan 17, 2022 | Magazine: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Enrique Chacon  1 , Nabil Manzour  2 , Vanna Zanagnolo  3 , Denis Querleu  4 , Jorge M Núñez-Córdoba  5 , Nerea Martin-Calvo  6 , Mihai Emil Căpîlna  7 , Anna Fagotti  8 , Ali Kucukmetin  9 , Constantijne Mom  10 , Galina Chakalova  11 , Aliyev Shamistan  12 , Antonio Gil Moreno  13   14 , Mario Malzoni  15 , Fabrice Narducci  16 , Octavio Arencibia  17 , Francesco Raspagliesi  18 , Tayfun Toptas  19 , David Cibula  20 , Dilyara Kaidarova  21 , Mehmet Mutlu Meydanli  22 , Mariana Tavares  23 , Dmytro Golub  24 , Anna Myriam Perrone  25 , Robert Poka  26 , Dimitrios Tsolakidis  27 , Goran Vujić  28 , Marcin A Jedryka  29 , Petra L M Zusterzeel  30 , Jogchum Jan Beltman  31 , Frederic Goffin  32 , Dimitrios Haidopoulos  33 , Herman Haller  34 , Robert Jach  35 , Iryna Yezhova  36 , Igor Berlev  37 , Margarida Bernardino  38 , Rasiah Bharathan  39 , Maximilian Lanner  40 , Minna M Maenpaa  41 , Vladyslav Sukhin  42 , Jean-Guillaume Feron  43 , Robert Fruscio  44   45 , Kersti Kukk  46 , Jordi Ponce  47 , Jose Angel Minguez  48 , Daniel Vázquez-Vicente  49 , Teresa Castellanos  49 , Felix Boria  50 , Juan Luis Alcazar  51 , Luis Chiva  52 , SUCCOR study group; SUCCOR study Group


Objective: To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009).

Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014.

We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score.

Results: We obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006).

Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively).

Conclusions: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death.

CITATION Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022 Feb;32(2):117-124. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002544. Epub 2022 Jan 17.