Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Abstracts - RGCON 2016
02 (
Suppl 1
); S91-S91
doi:
10.1055/s-0039-1685265

Cervix: Oral Abstract: Over view of clinical presentation, management and outcome of cervical cancer: A tertiary cancer centre experience

Department of Surgical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, New Delhi
Licence
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Objectives:

(a) To understand the profile of cervical cancer patients attending our hospital from January 2011 till January 2015. (b) To audit the type of care given to the patients with respect to their stage at presentation. (c) To compare the outcomes of open v/s robotic radical hysterectomy done for cervical cancer.

Methods:

We prospectively analyzed all cases of cervical cancer from January 2011 to January 2015 presenting at our institute. Data was retrieved from patient's records and institute's tumor registry. We compared all patients undergoing open v/s robotic RH. All the data were analysed using SPSS version 21.

Results:

A total of 562 patients were treated for cervical cancer during the time period between 2011-2015. Of these there were 316 (56%) cases taken up for surgery-212 robotic RH, 104 open radical hysterectomy and rest 246 (44%) patients received definitive CCRT. Most common age group was 40-54 yrs. IB1 stage was most common presenting stage. SCC was most common histology (75%). Immediate post op complication and oncological safety in terms of local recurrence was same in both groups. However length of stay and post operative blood requirement was significantly lower in robotic RH group. 45% of all patients who underwent surgery did not require adjuvant therapy in post op period while 35% patient required post op RT and 20% CCRT. 2.2% patient had local recurrence and most of the patients were in stage IIA1 at presentation.

Conclusion:

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological cancer in our hospital registry. Mostly women were in the age group of 40-54 years. Most common stage at presentation was 1B and the histology being SCC. Not many differences seen in open v/s robotic techniques of radical hysterectomy except for shorter hospital stay and less need of blood transfusion in the robotic group. Local recurrence rates are comparable in both open and robotic groups.

Keywords

Robotic radical hysterectomy
open radical hysterectomy
cervical cancer

Fulltext Views
21

PDF downloads
0
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections