In 2002, cervical cancer was the fourth most frequent cancer diagnosed in women between 15 and 39 years of age, with only breast cancer, melanoma, and thyroid cancer diagnosed more frequently. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) data, cervical cancer affects 1 in 128 women in their lifetimes, representing approximately 10,520 new cases in the United States annually. In the year 2000, nearly 28% of all patients diagnosed with cervical cancer and almost 39% of patients with stage I disease were less than 40 years old. Thus, a significant proportion of women with early-stage disease are diagnosed during their childbearing years.
A definite trend toward deferring childbearing into the late 30s and early 40s has been noted, particularly in Western countries. Indeed, between 1990 and 2002, the incidence of first births among women 35 to 39 years of age has increased by 31% and, for women 40 to 45 years old, by 51%. Luckily, the cure rate for early-stage cervical cancer is excellent; the 5-year survival rate is 92%, although standard oncologic treatment leads to permanent infertility in almost all cases. Thus, a significant proportion of women will be diagnosed with the disease before they have had the chance to have children, and, since the overall prognosis is so good, the issue of fertility preservation becomes of paramount importance when discussing treatment options with these young patients.
Over the last 15 years, radical trachelectomy has been recognized as a valuable fertility-preserving option for young women with early-stage disease. For a long time, clinicians believed that very few women would be candidates for this procedure. Sonoda and others recently published an interesting 16-year study examining all women undergoing a radical hysterectomy to treat early-stage cervical cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. In all, 43% (186/435) were under age 40 and potentially were interested in fertility preservation; of these, 48% would have met the selection criteria to undergo a radical trachelectomy. These results indicated that a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage disease may qualify for this fertility-preserving procedure and, therefore, should be counseled about this option preoperatively.
Thus, although the subject has been neglected for a long time, fertility preservation is now considered to be an important quality-of-life issue for young patients with early-stage cervical cancer, and it is being studied in a more systematic and comprehensive way. After initiating cancer treatment, women often regret not having received all the appropriate information needed for decisions on fertility preservation options. In examining the psychosocial impact of cancer-related infertility in women treated for gynecologic malignancies, Carter et al discovered that a high proportion of these women experience depression, grief, stress, and sexual dysfunction. Further, women faced with loss of fertility from gynecologic cancer treatments believed that they were deprived of a choice and, sadly, that medical professionals tended to minimize their sense of loss.
In this article, we will review surgical options to preserve fertility and emphasize the vaginal radical trachelectomy procedure and its oncologic, obstetric, and fertility outcomes. In addition, other radical trachelectomy techniques will be discussed, with the advantages and disadvantages of each highlighted. Even more ultraconservative approaches, such as conization with or without lymphadenectomy for very early-stage disease, also will be reviewed. Finally, new options to preserve fertility in locally advanced cervical cancer that integrate neoadjuvant chemotherapy and fertility-preserving surgery will be examined.
Vaginal Radical Trachelectomy
At the end of the 1980s, Dargent developed the vaginal radical trachelectomy procedure, which involves a laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection followed by the removal of the cervix and proximal parametrial tissue. The body of the uterus is retained to preserve fertility. The technical aspects of the procedure have been detailed elsewhere.
The popularity of the radical trachelectomy procedure came somewhat slowly. However, it is gaining wider acceptance among gynecologic oncologists as the oncologic, obstetric, and fertility data available in the literature become more substantial and promising.
Selection Criteria—A set of criteria to select candidates for this procedure was proposed in 1998. Most of these criteria have remained unchanged, except, perhaps, for tumor size. The procedure is generally limited to women with a lesion smaller than 2.0 to 2.5 cm in size, but it may be possible in patients with larger lesions, particularly if they are very exophytic.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful in evaluating patients for this procedure preoperatively. In particular, detection of an endocervical extension of the tumor in relation to the internal os may help in the preoperative exclusion of patients who have more extensive disease and are unlikely to have free margins at the time of the trachelectomy. Peppercorn et al found that the sensitivity of the MRI in assessing the relation of the tumor to the internal os was 100%, and the specificity was 92%. Further, MRI provides precise measurements of tumor diameter and volume and may detect early parametrial invasion.[12,13]
Occasionally, myometrial extension—which is likely to be missed on clinical evaluation—also may be detected using MRI. Although this test may assess lymph node status, it may miss metastasis. Bellomi et al recently reported that the sensitivity and specificity of MRI with respect to accurately diagnosing lymph node metastasis were 73% and 93%, respectively, and the positive predictive value was only 53%.
In our series and in most others, the rate of abandoning planned radical trachelectomies because of detection of more advanced disease (eg, positive lymph nodes, inadvertent discovery of more extensive endocervical extension) during the procedure was about 10%. In the latter situation, a completion radical vaginal hysterectomy may be performed immediately after trachelectomy. Thus, it is highly important to obtain preoperative permission from patients for radical hysterectomy, should it become necessary.
Recurrences—Clearly, a careful preoperative investigation is critical to rule out patients who are not candidates for this procedure, reduce the chances of abandoning the procedure intraoperatively, and lower the risk of recurrence. As more data on recurrences are reported, risk factors for recurrences may become better defined.
Table 1 presents a summary of recurrences following vaginal radical trachelectomy from six published series. The data indicate that the overall recurrence rate is less than 5% and the death rate is 2.5%, which are similar to the recurrence and death rates following radical hysterectomy for early-stage disease. In our series, the actuarial 5-year disease survival was 95%. The sites of recurrences were variable, with half being in the pelvis (parametrium and pelvic sidewall) and the others being at distant sites (intra-abdominal and in the para-aortic/supraclavicular nodes). In comparing the survival of patients following a radical trachelectomy to patients with similar-sized lesions treated with standard radical hysterectomy, Covens et al found no significant difference in survival.
Recently, three additional local recurrences following vaginal radical trachelectomy have been reported. One occurred in the bladder and iliac nodes of a patient 26 months after she underwent trachelectomy. The lesion was a stage IB1 adenocarcinoma measuring 2.1 cm × 2.0 cm. All 30 lymph nodes were negative, but the surgical margins were only free by 5 mm. The second occurred in the rectovaginal and vesicovaginal space 4 years after the trachelectomy. This stage IB1 squamous lesion measured 1.5 cm; the 14 lymph nodes were negative. The surgical margins were clear by > 10 mm, but isolated vascular space invasion were present. In the third case, an adenocarcinoma was diagnosed at the level of the cervix 7 years following trachelectomy despite regular 6-month follow-ups. However, whether this last lesion represented a true recurrence or a secondary primary tumor is questionable.
Prognostic Factors—The available data suggest that larger lesions may be associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Indeed, our data and those from Dargent indicated that lesions larger than 2 cm may pose a statistically higher risk of recurrence. Vascular space invasion also may be a risk factor for recurrence. Currently, however, it is not considered to be a contraindication for the procedure. Histology is not associated with recurrences. Further, even though adenocarcinomas involve the endocervix more frequently, they currently do not appear to be clearly associated with a higher risk of recurrence.
Another important prognostic factor is lymph node status-intraoperative detection of lymph node involvement greatly jeopardizes the option for a conservative treatment approach. Thus, we favor abandoning this procedure in favor of instituting combined chemoradiation. Para-aortic nodes may be sampled laparoscopically to rule out metastasis at that level, and ovaries may be transposed to preserve some ovarian function and avoid/delay menopause despite radiation therapy. Intraoperatively, the sentinel node mapping technique may help to detect lymph node metastasis by directing the frozen section analysis to the lymph nodes most likely to be involved.[21,22] Discovering positive nodes postoperatively is always devastating; therefore, the clinician should make the greatest effort to detect lymph node metastasis preoperatively or intraoperatively.
Follow-up—The follow-up of women after trachelectomy is similar to that of patients who have undergone hysterectomy—they must have visits every 3 months for the first 2 years, followed by visits every 4 to 6 months for the next 3 years and then annual examinations. Ideally, a colposcopic evaluation should be performed along with a cytology. Use of the cytobrush may help to better sample the endocervical canal in patients having small cervical openings. Long-term follow-up is very important, since late recurrences or new primaries may develop several years after the trachelectomy. However, no available evidence suggests that a complete hysterectomy needs to be performed after a patient's family is complete; this decision remains at the discretion of patients and their physicians.
Following the trachelectomy, the relative cervical stenosis may make the colposcopic evaluation unsatisfactory, and the cytology may become difficult to obtain and to interpret. Singh et al reviewed 197 smears from 32 women who underwent a radical trachelectomy. They noted that endometrial cells were present in up to 58% of the smears and led to false-positive malignant reports in 2%. A high proportion of smears contained only squamous cells without glandular cells and were considered unsatisfactory. Investigation of the patients with unsatisfactory smears or those with "atypical" changes often does not reveal anything, but two patients developed pelvic recurrences, and, in both cases, cytologic anomalies were present long before the recurrence was clinically or radiologically confirmed.
Thus, cytologic abnormalities found post-trachelectomy must be taken seriously and worked up accordingly, particularly when they are persistent. In our series, we found several patients who had various degrees of atypical cells on smears that usually were of glandular origin. Presumably, these represented inflamed endometrial cells from the lower uterine segment. After thorough evaluation, however, none have turned out to be malignant. A human papillomavirus DNA test may help in determining the significance of cytologic anomalies.
An MRI can also be very useful following patients post-trachelectomy to detect pelvic tumor recurrences, although no guidelines concerning the frequency of such testing in post-trachelectomy patients are available. Sahdev et al recently reviewed anatomic changes associated with the procedure, such as the appearance of the end-to-end anastomosis between the uterus and the vaginal vault, neofornix formation of the posterior vaginal wall, hematomas, suture/cerclage artifacts, isthmic stenosis, exaggeration of the pelvic plexuses, and thickening of the vaginal walls. Clinicians and radiologists must recognize such anatomic changes, as they may easily be misinterpreted as recurrences.
The author(s) have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/. Accessed March 2, 2006.
2. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al: American Cancer Society. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 54:8-29, 2004.
3. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. Cancer statistics review, 1975-2001. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001/. Accessed March 2, 2006.
4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al: Births: Final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 52:1-113, 2003.
5. Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Gemignani ML, et al: A fertility-sparing alternative to radical hysterectomy: How many patients may be eligible? Gynecol Oncol 95:534-538, 2004.
6. Carter J, Rowland K, Chi D, et al: Gynecologic cancer treatment and the impact of cancer-related infertility. Gynecol Oncol 97:90-95, 2005.
7. Corney RH, Crowther ME, Everett H, et al: Psychosexual dysfunction in women with gynaecological cancer following radical pelvic surgery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100:73-78, 1993.
8. Dargent D, Brun JL, Roy M: La trachélectomie élargie (T.E.). Une alternative à l’hystérectomie radicale dans le traitement des cancers infiltrants développés sur la face externe du col utérin. J Obstet Gynecol 2:292-295, 1994.
9. Plante M, Renaud M-C, Roy M: Vaginal radical trachelectomy, in Levine DA, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ (eds): Atlas of Procedures in Gynecologic Oncology, pp 207-221. London, Martin Dunitz, 2003.
10. Roy M, Plante M: Pregnancies after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1491-1496, 1998.
11. Peppercorn PD, Jeyarajah AR, Woolas R, et al: Role of MR imaging in the selection of patients with early cervical carcinoma for fertility-preserving surgery: Initial experience. Radiology 212:395-399, 1999.
12. Wagenaar HC, Trimbos JB, Postema S, et al: Tumor diameter and volume assessed by magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of outcome for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 82:474-482, 2001.
13. deSouza NM, McIndoe GA, Soutter WP, et al: Value of magnetic resonance imaging with an endovaginal receiver coil in the pre-operative assessment of stage I and IIa cervical neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:500-507, 1998.
14. Bellomi M, Bonomo G, Landoni F, et al: Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma. Eur Radiol 15:2469-2474, 2005.
15. Plante M, Renaud MC, Harel F, et al: Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an oncologically safe fertility-preserving surgery. An updated series of 72 cases and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 94:614-623, 2004.
16. Covens A, Shaw P, Murphy J, et al: Is radical trachelectomy a safe alternative to radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA-B carcinoma of the cervix? Cancer 86:2273-2279, 1999.
17. Morice P, Dargent D, Haie-Meder C, et al: First case of a centropelvic recurrence after radical trachelectomy: Literature review and implications for the preoperative selection of patients. Gynecol Oncol 92:1002-1005, 2004.
18. Morice P, Haie-Meder C, Pomel C, et al: Regarding "First case of a centropelvic recurrence after radical trachelectomy: Literature review and implications for the preoperative selection of patients" (Gynecol Oncol 92:1002-1005) by Morice et al; author reply, Gynecol Oncol 95:414-416, 2004.
19. Bali A, Weekes A, Van Trappen P, et al: Central pelvic recurrence 7 years after radical vaginal trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol 96:854-856, 2005.
20. Dargent D, Franzosi F, Ansquer Y, et al: Extended trachelectomy relapse: Plea for patient involvement in the medical decision. Bull Cancer 89:1027-1030, 2002.
21. Plante M, Renaud MC, Roy M: Sentinel node evaluation in gynecologic cancer. Oncology 18:75-87, 2002.
22. Wydra D, Sawicki S, Emerich J, et al: Lymphoscintigraphy in radical vaginal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 7:187-188, 2004.
23. Singh N, Titmuss E, Aleong JC, et al: A review of post-trachelectomy isthmic and vaginal smear cytology. Cytopathology 15:97-103, 2004.
24. Sahdev A, Jones J, Shepherd JH, et al: MR imaging appearances of the female pelvis after trachelectomy. Radiographics 25:41-52, 2005.
25. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, et al: Vaginal radical trachelectomy: A valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 98:3-10, 2005.
26. Boss EA, van Golde RJ, Beerendonk CC, et al: Pregnancy after radical trachelectomy: A real option? Gynecol Oncol 99(suppl 1):S152-S156,2005.
27. Klemm P, Tozzi R, Kohler C, et al: Does radical trachelectomy influence uterine blood supply? Gynecol Oncol 96:283-286, 2005.
28. Shepherd JH, Mould T, Oram DH: Radical trachelectomy in early stage carcinoma of the cervix: Outcome as judged by recurrence and fertility rates. BJOG 108:882-885, 2001.
29. Kolomainen DF, Herod JJ, Holland N, et al: Actinomyces on a papanicolaou smear following a radical trachelectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110:1036-1037, 2003.
30. Bernardini M, Barrett J, Seaward G, et al: Pregnancy outcome in patients post radical trachelectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1378-1382, 2003.
31. Alexopoulos E, Efkarpidis S, Fay TN, et al: Pregnancy following radical trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I cervical adenocarcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:791-792, 2002.
32. Lieman JM, Brumfield CG, Carlo W, et al: Preterm premature rupture of membranes: Is there an optimal gestational age for delivery? Obstet Gynecol 105:12-17, 2005.
33. Kenyon S, Boulvain M, Neilson J: Antibiotics for preterm rupture of the membranes: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 104:1051-1057, 2004.
34. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al: The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med 334:567-572; 1996.
35. Vintzileos AM: Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation and treatment, in Creasy R, Resnik R, Iams J (eds): Maternal-Fetal Medicine Principles and Practices, 5th ed, pp 579-601. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 2004.
36. Creasy R: Preterm labor and delivery, in Creasy R, Resnik R, Iams J (eds): Maternal-Fetal Medicine Principles and Practices, 5th ed, pp 623-661. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co, 2004.
37. Saling E: Der fruhe muttermundverschluss zur vermeidung habitueller aborte und fruhgeburten. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 185:259-261, 1981.
38. Mathevet P, Laszlo de Kaszon E, Dargent D, et al: Fertility preservation in early cervical cancer. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 31:706-712, 2003.
39. Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, et al: Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:723-730, 1997.
40. Berghella V, Odibo AO, Tolosa JE: Cerclage for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1311-1317, 2004.
41. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Use of progesterone to reduce preterm birth. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 291. Obstet Gynecol 102:115-1116, 2003.
42. Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Dombrowski MP, et al: Does progesterone treatment influence risk factors for recurrent preterm delivery? Obstet Gynecol 106:557-561, 2005.
43. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I: Progestational agents to prevent preterm birth: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obstet Gynecol 105:273-279, 2005.
44. Olsen SF, Secher NJ, Bjornsson S, et al: The potential benefits of using fish oil in relation to preterm labor: The case for a randomized controlled trial? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:978-982, 2003.
45. Selo-Ojeme DO, Ind T, Shepherd JH: Isthmic stenosis following radical trachelectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol 22:327-328, 2002.
46. Aust TR, Herod JJ, Gazvani R: Placement of a Malecot catheter to enable embryo transfer after radical trachelectomy. Fertil Steril 83:1842, 2005.
47. Smith JR, Boyle DC, Corless DJ, et al: Abdominal radical trachelectomy: A new surgical technique for the conservative management of cervical carcinoma. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1196-1200, 1997.
48. Ungar L, Palfalvi L, Hogg R, et al: Abdominal radical trachelectomy: A fertility-preserving option for women with early cervical cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 112:366-369, 2005.
49. Del Priore G, Ungar L, Smith JR, et al: Regarding "First case of a centropelvic recurrence after radical trachelectomy: Literature review and implications for the preoperative selection of patients," (Gynecol Oncol 92:1002-1005) by Morice et al; letter to the editor, Gynecol Oncol 95:414, 2004.
50. Bader AA, Tamussino KF, Moinfar F, et al: Isolated recurrence at the residual uterine cervix after abdominal radical trachelectomy for early cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 99:785-787, 2005.
51. Rodriguez M, Guimares O, Rose PG: Radical abdominal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with uterine conservation and subsequent pregnancy in the treatment of early invasive cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 85:370-374, 2001.
52. Abu-Rustum NR, Su W, Levine DA, et al: Pediatric radical abdominal trachelectomy for cervical clear cell carcinoma: a novel surgical approach. Gynecol Oncol 97:296-300, 2005.
53. Dargent D: Radical abdominal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with uterine conservation and subsequent pregnancy in the treatment of early invasive cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1728, 2002.
54. Covens A, Rosen B, Murphy J, et al: How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol 84:145-149, 2002.
55. Lee CL, Huang KG, Wang CJ, et al: Laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for stage Ib1 cervical cancer. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:111-115, 2003.
56. Cibula D, Ungar L, Palfalvi L, et al: Laparoscopic abdominal radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol 97:707-709, 2005.
57. Benedetti-Panici P, Greggi S, Colombo A, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery versus exclusive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell cervical cancer: Results from the Italian multicenter randomized study. J Clin Oncol 20:179-188, 2002.
58. Duenas-Gonzalez A, Cetina L, Mariscal I, et al: Modern management of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev 29:389-399, 2003.
59. Andrade JM, Marana HR, Mangieri LF, et al: Successful preservation of fertility subsequent to a complete pathologic response of a squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with primary systemic chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 77:213-215, 2000.
60. Marana HR, de Andrade JM, da Silva Mathes AC, et al: Chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer and pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 80:272-274, 2001.
61. Tewari K, Cappuccini F, Gambino A, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical carcinoma in pregnancy: A report of two cases and review of issues specific to the management of cervical carcinoma in pregnancy including planned delay of therapy. Cancer 82:1529-1534, 1998.
62. Maneo A: Chemo-conization: A more conservative approach. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society, October 4, 2004; Edinburgh, Scotland.
63. Zanetta G, Fei F, Mangioni C: Chemotherapy with paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin for the treatment of squamous cell cervical cancer: The experience of Monza. Semin Oncol 27(suppl 1):23-27, 2000.
64. Plante M, Lau S, Brydon L, et al: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followd by vaginal radical trachelectomy in bulky stage IB1 cervical cancer. Case report. Gynecol Oncol. In press.
65. Koliopoulos G, Sotiriadis A, Kyrgiou M, et al: Conservative surgical methods for FIGO stage IA2 squamous cervical carcinoma and their role in preserving women's fertility. Gynecol Oncol 93:469-473, 2004.
66. Ueda M, Ueki K, Kanemura M, et al: Conservative excisional laser conization for early invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 95:231-234, 2004.
67. Bekkers RL, Keyser KG, Bulten J, et al: The value of loop electrosurgical conization in the treatment of stage IA1 microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Oncol 12:485-489, 2002.
68. Schorge JO, Lee KR, Sheets EE: Prospective management of stage IA1 cervical adenocarcinoma by conization alone to preserve fertility: A preliminary report. Gynecol Oncol 78:217-220, 2000.
69. Paraskevaidis E, Koliopoulos G, Lolis E, et al: Delivery outcomes following loop electrosurgical excision procedure for microinvasive (FIGO stage IA1) cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 86:10-13, 2002.
70. El-Bastawissi AY, Becker TM, Daling JR: Effect of cervical carcinoma in situ and its management on pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 93:207-212, 1999.
71. Crane JM: Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 102:1058-1062, 2003.
72. Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, et al: The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 105:325-332, 2005.
73. Berghella V, Pereira L, Gariepy A, et al: Prior cone biopsy: Prediction of preterm birth by cervical ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1393-1397, 2004.
74. Argenta PA, Kubicek GJ, Dusenbery KE, et al: Widespread lymph node metastasis in a young women with FIGO stage IA1 squamous cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 97:659-661, 2005.
75. Nagarsheth N, Maxwell MF, Bentley RC, et al: Bilateral pelvic lymph node metastases in a case of FIGO stage IA1 adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 77:467-470, 2000.
76. Burnett AF, Roman LD, O’Meara AT, et al: Radical vaginal trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 88:419-423, 2003.
77. Schlaerth JB, Spirtos NM, Schlaerth AC: Radical trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with uterine preservation in the treatment of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:29-34, 2003.
78. Covens A: Preserving fertility in early stage cervical cancer with radical trachelectomy. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 48:46-66, 2003.
79. Mathevet P, Laszlo de Kaszon E, Dargent D, et al: Fertility preservation in early cervical cancer. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 31:706-712, 2003.