Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov 25;2013(11):CD008767.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008767.pub2.

Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment

Anne Lanceley  1 , Alison Fiander, Mary McCormack, Andrew Bryant
Affiliations

Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment

Anne Lanceley et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Although surveillance of women after completion of primary treatment for cervical cancer is purported to have an impact on their overall survival (OS), no strictly defined follow-up protocols are available for these women. Wide diversity in management has been noted in the follow-up of women who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer. Traditionally, women treated for cervical cancer undergo routine long-term, even life-long, follow-up. The primary objective of this practice has been to detect and treat recurrence early. This review sets out to systematically evaluate available evidence for the role of different models of follow-up after cervical cancer and the optimal use of investigations.

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits, harms and costs of different follow-up protocols for women who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group (CGCG) Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to January 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of clinical guidelines and review articles and contacted experts in the field.

Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different follow-up protocols after primary treatment in women with cervical cancer.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found, and therefore no data were analysed.

Main results: The search strategy identified 1,377 unique references, of which all were excluded on the basis of title and abstract.

Authors' conclusions: We found no evidence to inform decisions about different follow-up protocols after primary treatment for women with cervical cancer. Ideally, a large RCT or, at the very least, well-designed non-randomised studies (NRSs) that use multi-variate analysis to adjust for baseline imbalances are needed to compare these follow-up protocols. Such studies could include prospective trials conducted to determine the benefits and harms of different follow-up protocols upon completion of primary treatment for cervical cancer, along with an RCT undertaken to compare predefined follow-up protocols versus participant-initiated follow-up versus no follow-up until a participant is referred to a gynaecological oncology service after signs or symptoms of recurrence have been identified in the primary care or community setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicts of interest have been reported.

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008767

References

Additional references

American Cancer Society 2011
    1. American Cancer Society. Global Cancer Facts and Figures. 2nd Edition. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2011.
Amit 2006
    1. Amit A, Beck D, Lowenstein L, Lavie O, Bar Shalom R, Kedar Z, et al. The role of hybrid PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 2006;100(1):65‐9. - PubMed
Ansink 1996
    1. Ansink A, Barros Lopes A, Naik R, Monaghan JM. Recurrent stage IB cervical carcinoma: evaluation of the effectiveness of routine follow up surveillance. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1996;104(7):1156‐8. - PubMed
Barnhill 1992
    1. Barnhill D, O Connor D, Farley J, Teneriello M, Armstrong D, Park R. Clinical surveillance of gynecologic cancer patients. Gynecological Oncology 1992;46(3):275‐80. - PubMed
Bodurka Bevers 2000
    1. Bodurka Bevers D, Morris M, Eifel PJ, Levenback C, Bevers MW, Lucas KR, et al. Post‐therapy surveillance of women with cervical cancer. An outcomes analysis. Gynecologic Oncology 2000;78:187‐93. - PubMed
Bradley 2000
    1. Bradley E, Pitts M, Redman C, Calvert E, Howells R, Wafai C. What are the factors associated with the follow‐up preferences of women in long‐term remission from gynaecological cancer?. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;20(4):408‐11. - PubMed
Brookes 2009
    1. Brookes RA, Rader JS, Dehdshati F, Mutch DG, Powell MA, Thaker PH, et al. Surveillance FDG‐PET detection of asymptomatic recurrences in patients with cervical cancer. Gynaecologic Oncology 2009;112(1):104‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Cancer Research UK 2012
    1. Cancer Reaserch UK. CancerStats: Cancer Statistics for the UK. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats.
Chaturvedi 2007
    1. Chaturvedi AK, Engels EA, Gilbert ES, Chen BE, Storm H, Lynch CF, et al. Second cancers among 104,760 survivors of cervical cancer: evaluation of long‐term risk. Journal of the National Cancer Instuitute 2007;99:1634‐43. - PubMed
Chung 2007
    1. Chung HH, Jo H, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Clinical impact of integrated PET/CT on the management of suspected cervical cancer recurrence. Gynecologic Oncology 2007;104(3):529‐34. - PubMed
Deeks 2001
    1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta‐analysis. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG editor(s). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context. 2nd edition. London: BMJ Publication Group, 2001.
Der Simonian 1986
    1. Simonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177‐88. - PubMed
Duyn 2002
    1. Duyn A, Eijkeren M, Kenter G, Zwinderman K, Ansink A. Recurrent cervical cancer; detection and prognosis. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2002;81:351‐5. - PubMed
Elit 2009a
    1. Elit L, Fyles AW, Devries MC, Oliver TK, Fung‐Kee‐Fung M. Follow‐up for women after treatment for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;114:528‐35. - PubMed
Elit 2009b
    1. Elit L, Fyles A, Fung‐Kee‐Fung M, Oliver T. Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group. Follow‐up for women after treatment for cervical cancer.. Program in Evidence‐Based Care: Evidence‐Based Series. Vol. 4‐16, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Cancer Care Ontario, 2009.
FIGO 2009
    1. Percorelli S, FIGO Committee on Gynaecological Oncology. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix and endometrium. International Journal of Gynaecological Oncology 2009;105(2):103‐4. - PubMed
Forni 2007
    1. Forni F, Ferrandina G, Deodato F, Macchia G, Morganti AG, Smaniotto D, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen in follow‐up of cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy: evaluation of cost‐effectiveness. International Journal of Radiation Oncology ∙ Biology ∙ Physics 2007;69(4):1145‐9. - PubMed
GLOBOCAN 2008
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008: Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 10 2010; Vol. International Agency for Research on Cancer:http://globocan.iarc.fr.
Grunfeld 1996
    1. Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi‐Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. British Medical Journal 1996;3(13):665‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Haie‐Meder 2010
    1. Haie‐Meder C, Morice P, Castiglione M, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Annals of Oncology 2010;21(Suppl 5):v37‐40. - PubMed
Herzog 2007
    1. Herzog TJ, Wrigth JD. The impact of cervical cancer on quality of life—the components and means for management. Gynaecologic Oncology 2007;107(3):572‐7. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. British Medical Journal 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hricak 1996
    1. Hricak H, Powell CB, Yu KK, Washington E, Subak LL, Stern JL, Cisternas MG, Arenson RL. Invasive cervical carcinoma: role of MR imaging in pretreatment work‐up‐‐cost minimization and diagnostic efficacy analysis. Radiology 1996;198(2):403‐9. - PubMed
Jefford 2013
    1. Jefford M, Rowland J, Grunfeld E, Richards M, Maher J, Glaser A. Implementing improved post‐treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA. British Journal of Cancer 2013;108:14‐20. - PMC - PubMed
Kerbs 1982
    1. Krebs HB, Helmkamp BF, Sevin BU. Recurrent cancer of the cervix following radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1982;59:422. - PubMed
Kerr‐Wilson 1995
    1. Kerr‐Wilson RH, McCrum A. Follow‐up of patients with gynaecological cancer. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1995;35(3):298‐9. - PubMed
Kesic 2006
    1. Kesic V. Management of cervical cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2006;32:832‐7. - PubMed
Kew 2005
    1. Kew FM, Roberts AP, Cruickshank DJ. The role of routine follow‐up after gynecological malignancy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2005;15(3):413‐9. - PubMed
Kew 2006
    1. Kew FM, Cruickshank DJ. Routine follow up after treatment for a gynaecological cancer: a survey of practice. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2006;16:380‐4. - PubMed
Kunkler 1991
    1. Kunkler IH, Kerr GR, Ludgate SM. The value of follow‐up in stage II carcinoma of the cervix. Clinical Oncology 1991;3(1):28‐31. - PubMed
Larson 1988
    1. Larson DM, Copeland LJ, Malone JM Jr, Stringer A, Gershenson DM, Edwards CL. Diagnosis of recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1988;71(1):6‐9. - PubMed
Leeson 2013
    1. Leeson S, Stuart N, Sylvestre Y, Hall L, Whitaker R. Gynaecological cancer follow‐up: national survey of current practice in the UK. British Medical Journal Open 2013;3(doi:10.1136/bmjopen‐2013‐002859):e002859. - PMC - PubMed
Moore 2002
    1. Moore S, Corner J, Haviland J, Wells M, Salmon E, Normand C. Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomised trial. British Medical Journal 2002;325:1145. - PMC - PubMed
Morice 2004
    1. Morice P, Deyrolled C, Rey A, Atallah D, Pautier P, Camatte S. Value of routine follow‐up procedures for patients with stage I/II cervical cancer treated with combined surgery‐radiation therapy. Annals of Oncology 2004;15:218‐23. - PubMed
NCCN 2013
    1. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cervical Cancer. V3, 2013. NCCN Web‐based resource: www.nccn.org.
NCSI 2013
    1. National Cancer Survivorship Inititive. Stratified Pathways of Care, 2013. http://www.ncsi.org.uk/what‐we‐are‐doing/risk‐stratified‐pathways‐of‐care/.
NHS Information Centre 2012
    1. National Health Service. Cervical Screening Programme—England, 2011‐2012. NHS Report 2012.
Nobbenhuis 2012
    1. Nobbenhuis MA, Balasubramani L, Kolomainen DF, Barton DP. Surgical management and follow‐up of patients with cervical cancer: survey of gynaecological oncologists in the UK. Journal of Obsteterics and Gynaecology 2012;32(6):576‐9. - PubMed
Olaitan 2001
    1. Olaitan A, Murdoch J, Anderson R, James J, Graham J, Barley V. A critical evaluation of current protocols for the follow‐up of women treated for gynecological malignancies: a pilot study. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2001;11(5):349‐53. - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34. - PubMed
Samlal 1998
    1. Samlal R, Ven der Velden J, Erden T, Schilthuis MS, Gonzalez D, Lammes FB. Recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy: an analysis of clinical aspects and prognosis. International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer 1998;8:78‐84. - PubMed
Sartori 2007
    1. Sartori E, Pasinetti B, Carrara L, Gambino A Odicino F, Pecorelli S. Pattern of failure and value of follow‐up procedures in endometrial and cervical cancer patients. Gynecologic Oncology 2007;107:S241‐7. - PubMed
Soisson 1990
    1. Soisson AP, Gessler G, Soper JT, Berchuck A, Clarke‐Pearson DL. A comparison of symptomatology, physical examination, and vaginal cytology in the detection of recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1990;76(1):106‐9. - PubMed
Vale 2010
    1. Vale CL, Tierney JF, Davidson SE, Drinkwater KJ, Symonds P. Substantial improvement in UK cervical cancer survival with chemoradiotherapy: results of a Royal College of Radiologists' audit. Clinical Oncology 2010;22:590‐601. - PMC - PubMed
Zanagnolo 2009
    1. Zanagnolo V, Minig LA, Gadducci A, Maggino T, Sartori E, Zola P, et al. Surveillance procedures for patients for cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer 2009;19(3):306‐13. - PubMed
Zola 2007
    1. Zola P, Fuso L, Mazzola S, Piovano E, Perotto S, Gadducci A, et al. Could follow‐up different modalities play a role in asymptomatic cervical cancer relapses diagnosis? An Italian multicentre retrospective analysis. Gynaecologic Oncology 2007;107:S150‐4. - PubMed

Publication types