Cervical Cancer Surgical Management

On this page

Quick Reference

RxDrug of choiceCisplatin (40 mg/m² weekly) for adjuvant chemoradiation

AltAlternativesCarboplatin (if cisplatin-ineligible), Pembrolizumab (for recurrent/persistent disease)

⊘AvoidMinimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy (tumors >2 cm)

DxTest of choicePelvic MRI (for local staging) and SLN mapping with ICG

ScKey scoreFIGO Staging (2018), Sedlis Criteria (intermediate risk), Peters Criteria (high risk)

→When to referRefer to Gynecologic Oncology for any biopsy-confirmed cervical malignancy or suspicious cervical mass

Open abdominal radical hysterectomy is the gold standard for tumors >2 cm; simple hysterectomy is safe for low-risk tumors ≤2 cm; cisplatin-based CCRT is mandatory for high-risk pathologic features.

Surgical management of cervical cancer has undergone a significant paradigm shift, moving toward a 'less is more' approach for low-risk disease while strictly mandating open abdominal access for radical procedures. For early-stage disease (FIGO IA1 to IB2), the choice of surgery is dictated by tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). The landmark LACC trial fundamentally altered the standard of care by demonstrating that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) results in significantly higher recurrence rates and lower overall survival compared to open abdominal radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm. Conversely, the SHAPE trial has validated the safety of de-escalating to simple hysterectomy for low-risk tumors ≤2 cm. Fertility-sparing options, such as radical trachelectomy, remain a viable standard for young patients, provided nodal status is negative. Adjuvant therapy with cisplatin-based chemoradiation is reserved for those with high-risk pathologic features (Peters criteria) to optimize survival while minimizing the morbidity of triple-modality treatment.

Overview and Recommendations

Background

•Cervical cancer surgical management is strictly governed by the , which integrates clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings to determine the feasibility of curative-intent resection.
•The LACC trial (2018) established a critical paradigm shift, proving that minimally invasive surgery (MIS)—including laparoscopic and robotic approaches—carries a fourfold higher risk of disease progression (NNH = 17) compared to open abdominal radical hysterectomy.
•De-escalation of surgical radicality is the modern standard for low-risk disease (Stage IA1-IB1, tumors ≤2 cm), supported by the SHAPE trial (2024) which showed that simple is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy regarding 3-year pelvic recurrence rates (2.52% vs 2.17%).
•Prognostic stakes are defined by nodal status and the 'triple modality' trap; primary chemoradiation is preferred for locally advanced disease (Stage IB3+) to avoid the extreme morbidity associated with combining radical surgery and postoperative radiation.
•The Querleu-Morrow classification has replaced older systems to standardize the lateral extent of paracervical resection and emphasize nerve-sparing techniques that preserve bladder and bowel function.

Evaluation

•Suspect cervical cancer in any patient presenting with postcoital bleeding, persistent malodorous vaginal discharge, or a visible exophytic or endophytic cervical lesion on speculum examination.
•Perform a comprehensive pelvic and rectovaginal examination to clinically assess for parametrial involvement; fixed or thickened parametria (Stage IIB) generally precludes primary surgical management in favor of chemoradiation.
•Order a pelvic as the gold-standard imaging modality to measure the maximum tumor diameter, depth of stromal invasion, and the distance between the tumor's upper margin and the internal os.
•Utilize (SLN) with (ICG) for FIGO stages IA1 (with LVSI) through IB2; ICG visualized with near-infrared imaging is superior to blue dye, achieving a 97% detection rate.
•Confirm negative nodal status via intraoperative frozen section or definitive pathology before proceeding with radical resection; the presence of macrometastases or micrometastases (>0.2 mm) mandates abandoning surgery for definitive chemoradiation.
•Evaluate for (LVSI) on the initial cone biopsy or LEEP specimen, as its presence is a primary driver for recommending lymph node assessment and increased surgical radicality.
•Assess the distance to the internal os on MRI for patients desiring fertility preservation; a minimum 1 cm tumor-free margin is typically required to safely perform a .
•Screen for distant metastatic disease using PET/CT in patients with Stage IB3 or higher, or in those with suspicious pelvic lymphadenopathy identified on initial MRI.
•Review the histology for aggressive variants, such as small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, which are typically excluded from standard surgical protocols due to their high risk of early systemic spread.

Management

•Perform a cold knife cone biopsy or simple for Stage IA1 disease without LVSI, as the risk of nodal metastasis in this cohort is negligible (<1%).
•Execute a simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment for low-risk Stage IA2 or IB1 lesions ≤2 cm and <50% stromal invasion, following the SHAPE trial's evidence for reduced urogenital morbidity.
•Mandate an open abdominal approach for all radical hysterectomies (Type B or C) for tumors >2 cm; the use of minimally invasive surgery in this setting is associated with a 6-fold higher risk of death.
•Utilize Type C1 nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy to preserve the hypogastric and pelvic splanchnic nerves, which significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR).
•Offer radical trachelectomy (removal of the cervix and parametria with preservation of the uterine corpus) to patients desiring fertility preservation who have tumors ≤2 cm and negative nodes.
•Place a permanent cervical cerclage at the time of trachelectomy to support future pregnancies and mitigate the 2.48-fold increased risk of second-trimester miscarriage.
•Initiate adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients meeting 'Peters Criteria': positive pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or microscopic parametrial involvement.
•Administer weekly 40 mg/m² (up to a maximum of 70 mg) during radiation for high-risk disease to achieve a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year survival (NNT = 17).
•Provide adjuvant radiation alone for intermediate-risk patients meeting 'Sedlis Criteria' (e.g., LVSI positive with deep 1/3 stromal invasion), which reduces the risk of recurrence from 28% to 15%.
•Administer 40 mg SC daily initiated 2–12 hours preoperatively and continued for 28 days post-discharge for VTE prophylaxis in high-risk radical surgery cases.
•Implement multimodal analgesia including scheduled 1000 mg IV every 6 hours and 15–30 mg IV every 6 hours for the first 48 hours to facilitate early recovery.
•Monitor for postoperatively, particularly if a minimally invasive approach was utilized (OR 2.4), and maintain a high index of suspicion for watery vaginal discharge.
•Follow (ERAS) protocols, including early mobilization within 24 hours and prompt removal of the Foley catheter (within 48–72 hours) in nerve-sparing cases.

Board Review — High Yield

•LACC Trial — Demonstrated that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy has inferior oncologic outcomes (higher recurrence/death) compared to open surgery.
•SHAPE Trial — Established that simple hysterectomy is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for low-risk tumors ≤2 cm.
•Peters Criteria — Positive nodes, margins, or parametria; mandates adjuvant chemoradiation with cisplatin.
•Sedlis Criteria — Combination of tumor size, stromal invasion depth, and LVSI; triggers adjuvant radiation alone.
•Indocyanine Green (ICG) — Preferred tracer for SLN mapping; superior detection rate (97%) over blue dye.
•Querleu-Morrow Type C1 — Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy designed to prevent bladder dysfunction.
•Trachelectomy Margin — A minimum of 1 cm distance from the tumor to the internal os is required for fertility-sparing surgery.
•Ureteral Tunnel — The most common site of ureteral injury during radical hysterectomy, where the ureter passes under the uterine artery.

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Indications by Stage

▸Stage IA1 without LVSI is definitively managed with conization or simple hysterectomy due to negligible nodal risk.
▸Simple hysterectomy is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for low-risk lesions (≤2 cm) and reduces postoperative morbidity.
▸Open abdominal radical hysterectomy is the mandatory standard for Stage IB1 (>2 cm) and IIA1 disease following the LACC trial.

! Warning: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrence and death compared to the open approach (HR 3.74); open surgery remains the standard of care [20].

Cervical cancer surgical management is strictly dictated by FIGO staging, with a modern emphasis on de-escalating radicality for low-risk disease while mandating open approaches for radical procedures ^[1]^A1c^[18]^A1b^[20]^A1b. The selection of surgical intervention depends on tumor size, stromal invasion depth, and the presence of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) ^[1]^A1c^[2]^A1c.

Microinvasive and Low-Risk Disease (Stages IA1–IB1)

Stage IA1 disease without LVSI carries a negligible risk of nodal metastasis and is definitively managed with cone biopsy or simple ^[1]^A1c^[36]^D5. For patients with Stage IA1 with LVSI, IA2, or IB1 lesions ≤2 cm, the landmark SHAPE trial has redefined the standard of care ^[18]^A1b^[70]^D5. Simple hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy in this population, with 3-year pelvic recurrence rates of 2.52% versus 2.17% respectively (difference 0.35%; 95% CI, -1.15 to 1.85) ^[18]^A1b. This de-escalation significantly reduces intraoperative urogenital injuries and long-term bladder dysfunction ^[11]^A1b^[18]^A1b.

Early-Stage Radical Intervention (Stages IB1–IIA1)

Radical hysterectomy (Type B or C) remains the cornerstone for Stage IB1 (>2 cm) and IIA1 disease ^[1]^A1c^[56]^D5. However, the surgical approach is now restricted by the LACC trial results, which demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with inferior oncologic outcomes compared to open abdominal radical hysterectomy ^[9]^A1b^[20]^A1b^[35]^D5. MIS increased the risk of disease progression or death by nearly fourfold (HR 3.74, 95% CI 1.71–8.16); NNH = 17 to cause one additional recurrence at 3 years ^[20]^A1b^[54]^B3b. Consequently, NCCN and ESGO guidelines now recommend the open abdominal approach as the gold standard for radical hysterectomy ^[1]^A1c^[5]^A1c.

Locally Advanced Disease (Stages IB3–IIB)

Primary chemoradiation (CCRT) is the preferred treatment for locally advanced stages (IB3, IIA2, and IIB), as surgery alone often results in the need for "triple modality" therapy, which significantly increases morbidity ^[1]^A1c^[8]^A1b^[10]^A1b. While neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by radical surgery is utilized in some regions, a meta-analysis of 1,259 patients showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit for NACT plus surgery over definitive CCRT (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86–1.36) ^[14]^A1a. Furthermore, CCRT demonstrated a superior relapse-free profile compared to the NACT-surgery sequence (HR 1.32 in favor of CCRT) ^[14]^A1a.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
MIS for Radical Hysterectomy	Open approach is mandatory (NCCN/ASCO) ^[1]^A1c^[9]^A1b	MIS may be considered in tumors <2cm (Select centers) ^[25]^B2b	Level 1b (LACC)	Standard of care is open surgery
NACT vs. CCRT	Definitive CCRT is the standard (NCCN/ESMO) ^[1]^A1c^[14]^A1a	NACT + Surgery is an alternative (Italian/Asian studies) ^[7]^A1b^[10]^A1b	Level 1a (Meta-analysis)	CCRT preferred to avoid dual-modality toxicity

Pearl: Surgical management has shifted toward "less is more" for low-risk lesions (≤2 cm) via simple hysterectomy, while reinforcing the necessity of the open abdominal approach for radical procedures to ensure oncologic safety ^[18]^A1b^[20]^A1b.

Surgical Indications by FIGO Stage

FIGO Stage	Primary Surgical Option	Lymph Node Assessment
IA1 (No LVSI)	Conization or Simple Hysterectomy	Not required ^[1]^A1c
IA1 (LVSI+) / IA2	Simple Hysterectomy	Pelvic Lymphadenectomy or SLN ^[1]^A1c^[18]^A1b
IB1 (≤2 cm)	Simple Hysterectomy	Pelvic Lymphadenectomy or SLN ^[18]^A1b
IB1 (>2 cm) / IIA1	Open Radical Hysterectomy	Pelvic Lymphadenectomy ^[9]^A1b^[20]^A1b
IB3 / IIA2 / IIB	Primary CCRT (Surgery avoided)	Para-aortic staging (optional) ^[1]^A1c^[59]^D5

Operative Techniques

▸Open abdominal radical hysterectomy is the standard of care for tumors >2 cm, as minimally invasive surgery is associated with significantly higher recurrence and mortality rates (NNT = 20 to prevent one death at 4.5 years).
▸Simple hysterectomy is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for low-risk tumors ≤2 cm, offering reduced surgical morbidity and improved quality of life.
▸Sentinel lymph node mapping using indocyanine green (ICG) provides high diagnostic accuracy (NPV 100% for bilateral negative nodes) and is the preferred method for nodal assessment in early-stage disease.

HY High Yield: The LACC trial results (2018) fundamentally changed the field: MIS is no longer the standard for radical hysterectomy. For every 10 patients treated with open surgery instead of MIS, one recurrence is prevented at 4.5 years.

! Warning: In fertility-sparing trachelectomy, the first and most critical step is pelvic lymph node assessment. If any node is positive on frozen section, the procedure must be converted to definitive chemoradiotherapy or radical hysterectomy.

Abdominal radical (ARH) serves as the benchmark for curative-intent surgery in early-stage disease, particularly for tumors exceeding 2 cm in diameter ^[20]^A1b^[9]^A1b. The procedure requires precise anatomical dissection of the paracervical tissues, with the degree of radicality tailored to the tumor's clinical stage and risk profile. Modern surgical classification systems, most notably the Querleu-Morrow classification, define the lateral extent of resection based on the mobilization of the ureter and the resection of the vesicouterine and uterosacral ligaments ^[56]^D5.

Radical Hysterectomy and the Querleu-Morrow Classification

The Querleu-Morrow classification provides a standardized framework for describing the radicality of hysterectomy, moving away from the older Piver-Rutledge system to focus on lateral extent and nerve preservation ^[56]^D5. Type A radical hysterectomy involves minimal resection of the paracervix and is suitable for very low-risk disease. Type B involves partial resection of the vesicouterine and uterosacral ligaments, with the ureter unroofed but not laterally mobilized. Type C represents the classic radical hysterectomy, requiring complete resection of the ligaments and full mobilization of the ureter to the bladder entry point ^[56]^D5. Nerve-sparing modifications (Type C1) aim to preserve the autonomic innervation of the bladder and rectum by identifying and sparing the hypogastric nerves and the pelvic splanchnic nerves, thereby reducing postoperative voiding dysfunction ^[87]^C4.

The Shift to Open Surgery (LACC Trial)

The management of early-stage cervical cancer underwent a paradigm shift following the publication of the Phase 3 LACC trial ^[20]^A1b. This randomized trial demonstrated that minimally invasive surgery (MIS)—including both laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches—was associated with significantly worse oncologic outcomes compared to open abdominal radical hysterectomy ^[20]^A1b^[9]^A1b. The final analysis of the LACC trial reported a 4.5-year overall survival (OS) of 99.0% for open surgery versus 93.8% for MIS (HR 6.00, 95% CI 1.77-20.30); NNT = 20 to prevent one death at 4.5 years ^[9]^A1b. Furthermore, the disease-free survival (DFS) at 4.5 years was 96.5% for open surgery versus 86.0% for MIS; NNT = 10 to prevent one recurrence at 4.5 years ^[20]^A1b^[9]^A1b.

Subsequent meta-analyses and large-scale cohort studies have corroborated these findings, showing a 3.7-fold higher risk of recurrence with MIS ^[24]^B2a^[63]^B3b^[86]^A1a. Proposed mechanisms for this disparity include the use of uterine manipulators and the effect of CO₂ insufflation on tumor cell dissemination ^[35]^D5^[101]^C4. Consequently, NCCN, ASCO, and ESMO guidelines now recommend open abdominal radical hysterectomy as the standard of care for FIGO stage IB1 and higher ^[92]^D5^[100]^D5.

De-escalation: Simple Hysterectomy and the SHAPE Trial

For patients with low-risk early-stage disease—defined as FIGO 2018 stage IA2 or IB1 with tumors ≤2 cm, <50% stromal invasion, and negative lymph nodes—the SHAPE trial established the safety of simple hysterectomy (SH) ^[91]^D5^[100]^D5. This trial demonstrated that SH is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy in terms of pelvic recurrence rates while significantly reducing surgical morbidity, including lower rates of urinary tract injury and long-term bladder dysfunction ^[91]^D5. Simple hysterectomy involves the removal of the uterus and cervix without the wide resection of the paracervical tissues or the upper vagina ^[88]^B3b^[91]^D5.

Fertility-Sparing Trachelectomy

Fertility preservation is a viable option for young patients with tumors ≤2 cm and no evidence of nodal metastasis ^[17]^B2a^[37]^C4. Radical trachelectomy involves the removal of the cervix, the upper 1-2 cm of the vagina, and the supporting paracervical tissue, followed by the creation of a neo-cervical-vaginal anastomosis ^[37]^C4. The procedure can be performed via a vaginal approach (Dargent’s procedure) or an abdominal approach ^[17]^B2a. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is the mandatory first step; if nodes are positive on frozen section, the procedure is abandoned in favor of chemoradiotherapy ^[17]^B2a. Post-trachelectomy management often includes the placement of a permanent cervical cerclage to support future pregnancies ^[98]^C4. For tumors >2 cm, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by conservative surgery is being investigated as a strategy to reduce tumor volume and allow for fertility preservation ^[93]^D5.

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping and Para-aortic Staging

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping has largely replaced systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage disease due to its high diagnostic accuracy and reduced risk of lymphedema ^[83]^B2b^[85]^A1b. The FILM trial demonstrated that indocyanine green (ICG) visualized with near-infrared imaging is superior to blue dye, with SLN detection rates of 97% versus 77%, respectively ^[85]^A1b. The SENTICOL study confirmed that bilateral negative SLNs have a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for nodal metastasis ^[83]^B2b.

In locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy is utilized for surgical staging when PET/CT imaging is negative for para-aortic involvement ^[82]^B2b^[59]^D5. Surgical staging identifies occult para-aortic metastases in 12-22% of patients with negative imaging, allowing for the extension of radiation fields to the para-aortic region ^[59]^D5^[82]^B2b.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
Surgical Approach	Open surgery is mandatory for all radical hysterectomies (NCCN/ASCO) ^[20]^A1b^[9]^A1b.	MIS may be considered for tumors <2cm with protective maneuvers (e.g., Bakay technique) ^[97]^C4^[100]^D5.	Moderate	Most centers have reverted to open surgery for tumors >2cm.
Simple Hysterectomy	SH is the new standard for low-risk tumors ≤2cm (SHAPE trial) ^[91]^D5.	Radical hysterectomy remains preferred by some for IB1 disease regardless of size ^[20]^A1b.	High	Rapid adoption of SH for low-risk disease to reduce morbidity.
SLN Mapping	SLN mapping alone is sufficient if bilateral detection is achieved ^[83]^B2b.	Systematic lymphadenectomy is still required if SLN is not detected bilaterally ^[92]^D5.	High	Avoids morbidity of full dissection in most early-stage cases.

Pearl: Open abdominal radical hysterectomy remains the oncologic standard for tumors >2 cm due to a 6-fold higher risk of death associated with minimally invasive approaches in the LACC trial, whereas simple hysterectomy is now the preferred de-escalated option for low-risk disease ≤2 cm ^[9]^A1b^[20]^A1b^[91]^D5.

Querleu-Morrow Classification of Radical Hysterectomy

Type	Description	Clinical Application
Type A	Minimal resection of paracervix; ureter not mobilized.	Very low-risk disease (e.g., IA1 with LVSI).
Type B	Partial resection of ligaments; ureter unroofed but not moved.	Low-risk IB1 disease; reduces bladder morbidity.
Type C	Complete resection of ligaments; ureter fully mobilized.	Standard radical hysterectomy for IB1-IIA disease.
Type D	Resection of all lateral paracervical tissue to the pelvic wall.	Rarely performed; reserved for specific advanced cases.

Fertility-Sparing Surgery

▸Eligibility for fertility-sparing surgery requires FIGO 2018 stage IA1–IB1, tumor size <2 cm, and negative pelvic lymph nodes.
▸Radical trachelectomy increases the risk of second-trimester miscarriage (RR 2.48) and preterm birth, requiring prophylactic cerclage.
▸Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by FSS is an emerging strategy for tumors >2 cm but remains investigational in major guidelines.

HY High Yield: The 2 cm tumor size threshold is the most critical cut-off for oncologic safety in fertility-sparing surgery. Recurrence rates for tumors >2 cm treated with upfront FSS are significantly higher than for those <2 cm [17, 58].

! Warning: Any evidence of nodal involvement, including micrometastases found during sentinel node mapping, is an absolute contraindication to fertility-sparing surgery and requires conversion to radical treatment [1, 37].

Candidates for fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) must meet stringent criteria to ensure oncologic safety without compromising the possibility of future pregnancy ^[5]^A1c^[17]^B2a. Approximately 40% of cervical cancer patients are diagnosed during their childbearing years, necessitating a dedicated pathway that balances radicality with reproductive preservation ^[5]^A1c^[110]^B2b. Standard eligibility includes FIGO 2018 stage IA1 (with LVSI), IA2, or IB1 disease, a tumor size <2 cm, and a desire for future fertility ^[1]^A1c^[17]^B2a^[40]^B2a. Histological subtypes amenable to FSS include squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma; aggressive variants like small cell neuroendocrine tumors are generally excluded ^[17]^B2a^[37]^C4.

Patient Selection and Preoperative Workup

Nodal status is the most critical prognostic factor and must be confirmed as negative before proceeding with cervical resection ^[17]^B2a^[37]^C4. Pelvic lymphadenectomy, often utilizing , is the mandatory first step; any evidence of nodal metastasis (including micrometastases) requires abandonment of FSS in favor of radical or chemoradiation ^[1]^A1c^[37]^C4. Preoperative pelvic MRI is essential to assess the depth of stromal invasion and ensure a minimum 1 cm distance between the tumor's upper margin and the internal os ^[111]^B3b^[112]^B3b. MRI sensitivity for residual disease after diagnostic conization ranges from 60% to 70%, highlighting the need for careful pathological review of the initial specimen ^[111]^B3b.

Surgical Techniques and Radicality

The choice of procedure depends on the FIGO stage and the presence of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) ^[17]^B2a^[58]^D5. For stage IA1 without LVSI, cold knife conization with 3 mm clear margins is sufficient ^[1]^A1c^[88]^B3b. For stage IA1 with LVSI or IA2, simple trachelectomy or conization is increasingly favored over radical approaches due to lower morbidity and comparable oncologic outcomes ^[40]^B2a^[58]^D5. Radical trachelectomy (RT), which involves resection of the cervix, parametria, and a vaginal cuff, remains the standard for stage IB1 tumors <2 cm ^[17]^B2a^[37]^C4. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was historically common, the LACC trial findings have prompted a shift toward open abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART) for tumors >2 cm to ensure adequate radicality ^[54]^B3b^[65]^B3b.

Reproductive Outcomes and Surveillance

Fertility-sparing procedures do not significantly impair the ability to conceive, but they are associated with a 2.48-fold increased risk of second-trimester miscarriage (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.53-4.03; NNT not calculable from reported data) ^[33]^A1a^[58]^D5. This risk is primarily due to , necessitating the placement of a prophylactic permanent cerclage at the time of trachelectomy ^[37]^C4^[58]^D5. Postoperative surveillance relies on cytology and high-risk HPV testing every 3 to 6 months for the first two years ^[103]^B3b^[106]^A1a. Post-conization HPV vaccination may further reduce the risk of recurrence by preventing re-infection or reactivation ^[104]^A1c^[107]^B2a.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A (NCCN)	Position B (ESGO/ESHRE)	Strength	Implication
MIS for RT	Acceptable for select <2 cm lesions ^[1]^A1c	Prefers open approach for radicality ^[5]^A1c	Moderate	Approach varies by institutional expertise
NACT for >2 cm	Considered investigational ^[1]^A1c	Option in expert centers to downstage ^[5]^A1c	Low	Access to NACT-FSS is limited

Pearl: Oncologic safety in fertility-sparing surgery is predicated on a tumor size <2 cm and negative nodal status; exceeding these thresholds significantly increases recurrence risk ^[17]^B2a^[58]^D5.

Comparison of Fertility-Sparing Procedures

Procedure	Indication (FIGO 2018)	Extent of Resection
Cold Knife Conization	IA1 (no LVSI)	Ecto- and endocervix with 3 mm margins
Simple Trachelectomy	IA1 (with LVSI), IA2	Entire cervix; preserves paracervical tissue
Radical Trachelectomy	IB1 (<2 cm)	Cervix, parametria, and upper vaginal cuff
NACT + FSS	IB2 (>2 cm)	Chemotherapy followed by conization or trachelectomy

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping

▸ICG is the gold-standard tracer, providing a 97% detection rate and superior bilateral mapping compared to blue dyes [85].
▸A side-specific systematic lymphadenectomy is mandatory if SLN mapping fails on one side of the pelvis [114, 122].
▸Ultrastaging is required to detect micrometastases and isolated tumor cells that are missed by standard H&E or frozen sections [115, 118].

HY High Yield: The 'empty node' phenomenon (mapping failure) requires side-specific systematic lymphadenectomy. Never assume a non-mapping side is node-negative [114, 122].

! Warning: Intraoperative frozen section has low sensitivity for micrometastases; a negative frozen section does not rule out the need for adjuvant therapy if ultrastaging later reveals low-volume disease [115].

Bilateral sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping serves as the primary staging modality for FIGO stage IA1 (with LVSI) to IB2 disease, offering a high-precision alternative to systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) ^[83]^B2b^[116]^A1c. The technique relies on the predictable lymphatic drainage of the cervix, where the first-draining nodes are identified and subjected to intensive pathologic evaluation. In patients with tumors <2 cm, SLN mapping achieves a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.1% ^[23]^B2b.

Tracer Selection and Technique

Indocyanine green (ICG) is the preferred tracer due to superior bilateral detection rates compared to blue dyes (97% vs 77%, p<0.0001); NNT = 5 to identify one additional SLN using ICG over isosulfan blue ^[85]^A1b. ICG provides real-time visualization of lymphatic channels via near-infrared imaging, facilitating the identification of nodes in the upper and lower paracervical pathways ^[120]^B2a^[122]^B2b. Carbon nanoparticle suspensions (CNS) also demonstrate high detection rates and significantly reduce lymph-related morbidity compared to systematic dissection ^[117]^A1b^[119]^A1a. For laparoscopic procedures, steerable DROP-IN gamma probes may enhance the detection of 99mTc-nanocolloid tracers compared to traditional rigid probes ^[113]^C4.

The Surgical Algorithm

Adherence to a strict surgical algorithm is mandatory to maintain oncologic safety. If a sentinel node is not identified on a specific side, a side-specific systematic lymphadenectomy must be performed to avoid understaging ^[114]^A1a^[122]^B2b. Mapping failure occurs in 5%–20% of cases and is more frequent in patients with higher BMI, advanced age, or larger primary tumors ^[114]^A1a. The algorithm also requires the excision of any suspicious or enlarged nodes regardless of mapping status ^[116]^A1c.

Pathologic Ultrastaging and Intraoperative Assessment

Ultrastaging, involving serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for cytokeratin, is the cornerstone of SLN evaluation ^[118]^C4. This process identifies low-volume metastases, including micrometastases (MICs, >0.2 mm to ≤2 mm) and isolated tumor cells (ITCs, ≤0.2 mm), which are frequently missed by standard H&E staining ^[118]^C4. Intraoperative frozen section analysis has limited sensitivity for detecting low-volume disease and should not replace definitive ultrastaging ^[115]^A1a. Molecular diagnosis using SCCA or HPV DNA PCR has been explored to detect occult metastases, though these remain experimental ^[46]^C4^[78]^C4.

Oncologic Outcomes

Recent evidence from a multicenter randomized trial (NEJM 2025) indicates that SLN biopsy alone is non-inferior to systematic PLND in terms of survival for early-stage disease when nodes are negative ^[62]^A1b. This approach significantly reduces the incidence of lower-limb lymphedema and lymphocele formation compared to systematic dissection ^[117]^A1b.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
SLN Biopsy Alone vs. PLND	SLN alone is sufficient if bilateral mapping is successful (NCCN/ESMO) ^[116]^A1c.	Systematic PLND was historically required for all patients (pre-2025 data) ^[62]^A1b.	Level 1b	Reduced morbidity with equivalent survival ^[62]^A1b^[117]^A1b.
Frozen Section Utility	Useful for immediate detection of macrometastases ^[115]^A1a.	Insufficient sensitivity for MICs/ITCs; cannot guide final management ^[115]^A1a.	Level 1a	Final pathology is the gold standard.

Pearl: Bilateral SLN mapping with ICG and mandatory ultrastaging provides a 99% NPV in tumors <2 cm, allowing for the omission of systematic lymphadenectomy and its associated morbidity ^[23]^B2b^[83]^B2b^[85]^A1b.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SLN Mapping

Parameter	Value	Evidence
NPV (Tumors <2 cm)	99.1%	^[23]^B2b
Sensitivity (SENTICOL)	92.0%	^[83]^B2b
Bilateral Detection (ICG)	97.0%	^[85]^A1b
Bilateral Detection (Blue Dye)	77.0%	^[85]^A1b

Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)

▸Peters criteria (positive nodes, margins, or parametria) require adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) to improve overall survival.
▸Sedlis criteria identify intermediate-risk patients (negative nodes but high-risk tumor features) who benefit from adjuvant radiation to reduce local recurrence.
▸The addition of chemotherapy to radiation for intermediate-risk disease (GOG-263) remains a point of active clinical transition, with many centers now favoring CCRT for patients with multiple Sedlis factors.

! Warning: Trimodal therapy (surgery followed by CCRT) significantly increases gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity compared to primary CCRT; if high-risk factors are suspected preoperatively, primary CCRT is often preferred [55, 130].

HY High Yield: Sedlis criteria were developed for squamous cell carcinoma; however, recent data suggest adenocarcinoma may require more aggressive adjuvant triggers due to different patterns of failure [136, 137].

Pathologic evaluation of the radical specimen dictates the transition from surgical management to adjuvant therapy based on validated risk stratification. This assessment identifies patients at high risk for distant failure or intermediate risk for local recurrence, ensuring that the morbidity of trimodal therapy—surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy—is reserved for those with a clear survival benefit ^[36]^D5^[138]^B3b.

High-Risk Disease: The Peters Criteria

High-risk status is defined by the presence of any one of three "Peters Criteria": positive pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or microscopic parametrial involvement. The landmark GOG 109 trial established that for these patients, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with weekly 40 mg/m² is superior to radiation (RT) alone ^[126]^A1a. A meta-analysis of 18 trials confirmed that CCRT provides a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.91); NNT = 17 to prevent one death at 5 years ^[126]^A1a. While sequential chemotherapy followed by radiation has been explored to reduce toxicity, CCRT remains the NCCN and ESMO standard of care ^[123]^A1b^[131]^D5.

Intermediate-Risk Disease: The Sedlis Criteria

Intermediate-risk patients are those with negative nodes, margins, and parametria who nonetheless harbor a 15–20% risk of recurrence due to primary tumor characteristics. The Sedlis Criteria (GOG 92) utilize a combination of tumor size, depth of stromal invasion, and (LVSI) to trigger adjuvant RT.

LVSI Status	Depth of Stromal Invasion	Tumor Size (Clinical/Pathologic)
Positive (+)	Deep 1/3	Any size
Positive (+)	Middle 1/3	≥ 2 cm
Positive (+)	Superficial 1/3	≥ 5 cm
Negative (-)	Middle or Deep 1/3	≥ 4 cm

Adjuvant RT in this cohort reduces the risk of recurrence from 28% to 15% (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.81); NNT = 8 to prevent one recurrence ^[41]^A1a^[142]^B3b.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

The primary debate involves whether intermediate-risk patients benefit from the addition of cisplatin to RT (CCRT). While the STARS trial suggested sequential chemoradiation might improve disease-free survival (DFS) compared to RT alone (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.76), the NRG Oncology/GOG-263 trial sought to definitively compare RT vs. CCRT in this population ^[6]^A1b^[26]^A1b.

Question	Position A (RT Alone)	Position B (CCRT)	Strength	Implication
Optimal Intermediate-Risk Adjuvant	Standard per Sedlis/GOG 92; avoids systemic toxicity ^[41]^A1a.	Emerging preference; GOG-263/KGOG 1008 data suggests potential DFS benefit ^[6]^A1b.	Moderate	Practice is shifting toward CCRT for "high-intermediate" risk ^[142]^B3b.

Pearl: The presence of any Peters criterion (positive nodes, margins, or parametria) mandates cisplatin-based CCRT, which provides a 6% absolute survival advantage over radiation alone ^[126]^A1a.

Risk Stratification for Adjuvant Therapy

Risk Category	Pathologic Findings	Recommended Adjuvant Therapy
High Risk (Peters)	(+) Nodes, (+) Margins, or (+) Parametria	CCRT (Cisplatin 40 mg/m² weekly + RT) ^[126]^A1a
Intermediate Risk (Sedlis)	LVSI(+), deep stromal invasion, and/or large tumor size	RT alone (standard) or CCRT (emerging) ^[6]^A1b^[41]^A1a
Low Risk	Negative nodes, margins, parametria; no Sedlis factors	Observation ^[36]^D5

Intraoperative Considerations and Complications

▸Ureteral and autonomic nerve injuries are the most common structural and functional complications of radical hysterectomy.
▸Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) affects up to 30% of patients and is best mitigated by nerve-sparing surgical techniques.
▸Extended VTE prophylaxis for 28 days is recommended for patients undergoing radical pelvic surgery for malignancy.

! Warning: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with a higher risk of ureterovaginal fistula compared to open surgery [154].

HY High Yield: Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy reduces the incidence of long-term bladder dysfunction without compromising oncological safety in selected patients [147, 153].

occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of radical hysterectomies, primarily during the dissection of the "tunnel" where the ureter passes beneath the uterine artery ^[146]^A1a^[154]^A1a. Maintaining the integrity of the ureteral adventitia is critical to prevent devascularization and subsequent formation, which occurs more frequently in minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8) ^[154]^A1a. Intraoperative management of suspected injury requires immediate retrograde stenting or primary ureteroneocystostomy depending on the location and extent of the defect ^[146]^A1a.

Respiratory Monitoring

Postoperative respiratory failure is rare but requires vigilance in patients with significant comorbidities or prolonged operative times. Functional Vital Capacity (FVC) thresholds of <15 mL/kg or a 30% reduction from preoperative baseline serve as triggers for intensive care monitoring or delayed extubation. In patients with HIV, NCCN guidelines emphasize that surgical candidacy should not be denied based on HIV status alone, provided CD4 counts and viral loads are optimized to reduce the risk of opportunistic pneumonia ^[3]^A1c.

Autonomic Complications

Disruption of the inferior hypogastric plexus during paracervical resection leads to autonomic dysfunction, most commonly manifesting as postoperative urinary retention (POUR) in 10% to 30% of patients ^[153]^B2b. Nerve-sparing techniques aim to preserve the bladder branches of the pelvic plexus, significantly reducing the need for long-term catheterization ^[147]^C4^[153]^B2b. Other autonomic sequelae include adynamic ileus and, rarely, cardiac arrhythmias due to vagal stimulation during deep pelvic retraction.

DVT/PE Prophylaxis

Cervical cancer patients are at high risk for (VTE) due to the combination of pelvic malignancy, extensive retroperitoneal dissection, and prolonged immobility ^[60]^D5. Standard prophylaxis involves 40 mg SC daily (or 5000 units TID) initiated 2–12 hours preoperatively and continued for 28 days post-discharge in high-risk cases ^[60]^D5. Mechanical prophylaxis with sequential compression devices (SCDs) should be used intraoperatively and until the patient is fully ambulatory.

Pain Management

Multimodal is the standard of care to reduce opioid consumption and facilitate early recovery. This typically includes scheduled acetaminophen 1000 mg IV/PO every 6 hours and ketorolac 15–30 mg IV every 6 hours (for the first 48 hours), supplemented by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for breakthrough pain. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks or epidural anesthesia may be utilized for open radical procedures to improve pain scores and reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus.

Rehabilitation and Hospital-Acquired Complications

Early mobilization within 24 hours of surgery is the primary intervention to prevent hospital-acquired pneumonia and pressure injuries. Physical therapy should focus on pelvic floor rehabilitation, especially in patients who underwent extensive nerve-dissection ^[153]^B2b. Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs) requires prompt removal of the foley catheter, typically once the patient passes a voiding trial or within 48–72 hours in nerve-sparing cases.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
SLN Biopsy Alone	Safe to omit LND if SLN is negative ^[62]^A1b	Full LND remains the gold standard [NCCN]	Moderate	Reduces lymphedema risk
Surgical Approach	Open surgery is the standard [NCCN]	MIS may be safe in tumors <2cm ^[150]^B3b	High	LACC trial impact

Pearl: The risk of ureterovaginal fistula is significantly higher in minimally invasive radical compared to the open approach (OR 2.4), necessitating meticulous preservation of the ureteral sheath ^[154]^A1a.

Common Intraoperative and Early Postoperative Complications

Complication	Frequency	Prevention	Management
Ureteral Injury	1–2%	Meticulous dissection, stenting	Primary repair or reimplantation
Bladder Injury	1–3%	Sharp dissection, bladder filling	Two-layer primary closure
VTE (DVT/PE)	2–5%	LMWH, SCDs, early ambulation	Therapeutic anticoagulation
POUR	10–30%	Nerve-sparing surgery	Intermittent catheterization
Hemorrhage	1–5%	Vessel sealing, packing	Transfusion, re-exploration

Postoperative Recovery and ERAS

▸ERAS protocols and prehabilitation (PREHAB) reduce length of stay and costs without increasing readmission rates.
▸Nurse-led, home-based programs are superior to conventional education for improving postoperative quality of life and sexual function.
▸Bowel and urinary toxicities after adjuvant radiotherapy should be monitored using validated tools like the EPIC instrument.

HY High Yield: Audit-and-feedback mechanisms are the most effective way to ensure ERAS protocol adherence in large hospital networks, directly impacting recovery metrics [163].

Standardization of postoperative care through (ERAS) protocols reduces the length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs without increasing readmission or complication rates ^[161]^D5. Modern pathways integrate prehabilitation (PREHAB), which optimizes physiological reserve through exercise and nutritional support before the surgical insult ^[161]^D5. Implementation is most effective when supported by intensive audit-and-feedback mechanisms within a hospital network, ensuring high adherence to protocol components across surgical units ^[163]^A1b.

Recovery Timeline and Functional Outcomes

The recovery trajectory following radical or is prolonged, often requiring months for full functional restoration ^[158]^A1c. While immediate postoperative mortality is 3-7% for radical procedures, the focus shifts to long-term sequelae such as bowel and urinary dysfunction ^[158]^A1c^[164]^A1b. Validated instruments like the Expanded Index Composite (EPIC) are utilized to quantify these toxicities, particularly in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy ^[164]^A1b. Approximately 80% of patients walk independently at 6 months, though many continue to experience significant fatigue and psychological distress ^[165]^A1b.

Long-term Sequelae and Support

Home-based, nurse-led health programs significantly improve quality of life and family function compared to conventional nursing education alone ^[165]^A1b. These interventions address physiological rehabilitation, emotion-release management, and sexual function, which is frequently impaired following radical surgery and adjuvant therapy ^[165]^A1b. For patients requiring adjuvant treatment, the choice between concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT), sequential therapy (SCRT), or CCRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CCRT+CT) depends on specific risk factors; CCRT+CT may offer the most significant survival benefit in high-risk cohorts (NNT not calculable from reported data) ^[160]^A1a.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk	CCRT is the standard of care ^[162]^A1c.	CCRT + Consolidation CT may improve survival ^[160]^A1a.	Moderate	Potential shift in standard for high-risk disease.
Timing	Preoperative brachytherapy for early-stage ^[162]^A1c.	Postoperative vaginal cuff brachytherapy ^[159]^A1c.	Expert Consensus	Varies by institutional protocol and risk factors.

Pearl: ERAS protocols and prehabilitation reduce hospital stay without increasing complications, but long-term recovery requires nurse-led support to manage the high incidence of sexual and urinary dysfunction ^[161]^D5^[165]^A1b.

Prognostic Factors for Postoperative Recovery

Factor	Good Prognosis	Poor Prognosis
Nodal Status	Negative	Positive ^[160]^A1a
Surgical Margins	Negative	Positive ^[158]^A1c
Adjuvant Therapy	Completed as scheduled	Incomplete or delayed ^[160]^A1a
Follow-up Care	Nurse-led/Structured	Conventional only ^[165]^A1b
Preoperative Status	High physiological reserve	Frailty/Low PREHAB ^[161]^D5

Outcomes by Stage and Approach

▸The LACC trial established open radical hysterectomy as the standard of care due to a 4-fold increase in recurrence risk with minimally invasive approaches.
▸Simple hysterectomy is non-inferior to radical hysterectomy for low-risk tumors ≤2 cm, significantly reducing surgical morbidity.
▸Post-treatment ctDNA monitoring provides a highly sensitive biomarker for early detection of residual disease and recurrence risk.

HY High Yield: The LACC trial (N=631) is the definitive evidence for preferring open surgery over MIS in radical hysterectomy, showing a 3-year DFS of 97.1% vs 91.2% (NNH 17 for MIS) [20].

! Warning: Persistent detection of HPV ctDNA at 3 months post-chemoradiotherapy is associated with a significantly higher risk of locoregional and distant relapse [215, 233].

Abdominal radical remains the oncologic gold standard for early-stage disease following the landmark LACC trial, which demonstrated a significantly higher risk of recurrence with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) ^[9]^A1b^[20]^A1b. In this trial of 631 patients, the 4.5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 86.0% for MIS compared to 96.5% for open surgery (HR 3.74, 95% CI 1.63-8.58); this translates to an NNH of 10 for MIS to cause one additional recurrence ^[20]^A1b. While MIS initially suggested better short-term quality of life (QoL), long-term QoL scores at 6 months and beyond show no significant difference between surgical approaches ^[84]^A1b.

De-escalation to simple hysterectomy is safe in strictly selected low-risk patients, defined as those with tumors ≤2 cm and limited stromal invasion ^[18]^A1b. The SHAPE trial (N=550) confirmed non-inferiority for this cohort, with a 3-year pelvic recurrence rate of 2.5% for simple hysterectomy versus 2.2% for radical hysterectomy (difference 0.35%, 95% CI -1.62 to 2.32) ^[18]^A1b^[195]^A1b. This approach significantly reduces perioperative morbidity, particularly regarding bladder dysfunction and ^[18]^A1b.

Recurrence risk is highest in the first 24 months, with 5-year recurrence rates reaching 30-40% in locally advanced cases ^[173]^A1b. The addition of 200 mg to chemotherapy (± 15 mg/kg) in the KEYNOTE-826 trial (N=617) improved overall survival (OS) in persistent or recurrent disease (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.84); NNT = 9 to prevent one death at 24 months ^[167]^A1b^[179]^A1b. Ultrasensitive detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or HPV DNA post-treatment serves as a potent predictor of relapse; patients with detectable ctDNA at the end of treatment have significantly inferior progression-free survival ^[168]^A1b^[215]^B2b^[233]^B2b.

Recovery follows a predictable timeline, with most patients returning to baseline activity within 6 to 12 weeks. Long-term functional outcomes are generally favorable, with 80% of patients walking independently at 6 months post-radical surgery. However, perioperative mortality ranges from 3-7% in high-complexity cases such as pelvic exenteration or in patients with significant comorbidities ^[196]^D5^[216]^B2b.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
Surgical approach for <2cm	Open surgery only (NCCN) ^[35]^D5	MIS may be safe in <2cm (ESMO/Retrospective) ^[25]^B2b^[54]^B3b	Moderate	Choice of laparotomy vs laparoscopy

Pearl: Abdominal radical hysterectomy is the preferred approach for tumors >2cm to minimize recurrence risk (NNH 10 for MIS), while simple hysterectomy offers a safe de-escalation for low-risk disease ≤2cm ^[18]^A1b^[20]^A1b.

Prognostic Factors in Surgical Management

Factor	Good Prognosis	Poor Prognosis
Tumor Diameter	≤2 cm ^[17]^B2a	>4 cm ^[17]^B2a
Nodal Status	Negative ^[17]^B2a	Positive ^[17]^B2a
ctDNA (Post-CRT)	Undetectable ^[168]^A1b^[215]^B2b	Detectable ^[168]^A1b^[215]^B2b
LVSI	Absent ^[17]^B2a	Present ^[17]^B2a

Recovery Timeline Post-Radical Surgery

Phase	Timeline	Clinical Milestones
Acute	0–6 weeks	Wound healing; return to light activity
Intermediate	3–6 months	Restoration of bowel/bladder function; return to work
Long-term	>6 months	80% independent ambulation; surveillance for recurrence

References

[1]
Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S et al.. “Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2019). PMID: 30659131 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[2]
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR et al.. “Cervical cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2013). PMID: 23486458 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage
[3]
Reid E, Suneja G, Ambinder RF et al.. “Cancer in People Living With HIV, Version 1.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2018). PMID: 30099375 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage, Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[4]
Chang HA, Armenian SH, Dellinger TH. “Secondary Neoplasms of the Female Lower Genital Tract After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2018). PMID: 29439180 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[5]
Morice P, Scambia G, Abu-Rustum NR et al.. “Fertility-sparing treatment and follow-up in patients with cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and borderline ovarian tumours: guidelines from ESGO, ESHRE, and ESGE.” The Lancet. Oncology (2024). PMID: 39216500 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[6]
Ryu SY, Deng W, Albuquerque K et al.. “Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant radiation versus chemoradiation in intermediate-risk, early-stage cervical cancer following radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: results from NRG Oncology/GOG-263/KGOG 1008.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2025). PMID: 40947016 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[7]
Lissoni AA, Colombo N, Pellegrino A et al.. “A phase II, randomized trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy comparing a three-drug combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (TIP) versus paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the Snap-02 Italian Collaborative Study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2009). PMID: 19181826 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[8]
Cetina L, González-Enciso A, Cantú D et al.. “Brachytherapy versus radical hysterectomy after external beam chemoradiation with gemcitabine plus cisplatin: a randomized, phase III study in IB2-IIB cervical cancer patients.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2013). PMID: 23609186 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[9]
Ramirez PT, Robledo KP, Frumovitz M et al.. “LACC Trial: Final Analysis on Overall Survival Comparing Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2024). PMID: 38810208 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[10]
Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P et al.. “Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radical Surgery Versus Concomitant Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Patients With Stage IB2, IIA, or IIB Squamous Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2018). PMID: 29432076 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[11]
Ferguson SE, Brotto LA, Kwon J et al.. “Sexual Health and Quality of Life in Patients With Low-Risk Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Results From GCIG/CCTG CX.5/SHAPE Trial Comparing Simple Versus Radical Hysterectomy.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2025). PMID: 39353164 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[12]
Chopra S, Gupta S, Kannan S et al.. “Late Toxicity After Adjuvant Conventional Radiation Versus Image-Guided Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Cervical Cancer (PARCER): A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2021). PMID: 34506246 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[13]
Blohmer JU, Paepke S, Sehouli J et al.. “Randomized phase III trial of sequential adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without erythropoietin Alfa in patients with high-risk cervical cancer: results of the NOGGO-AGO intergroup study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2011). PMID: 21860000 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[14]
Marchetti C, Fagotti A, Tombolini V et al.. “Survival and toxicity in neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Cancer treatment reviews (2020). PMID: 31838220 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[15]
Arbyn M, Simon M, de Sanjosé S et al.. “Accuracy and effectiveness of HPV mRNA testing in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” The Lancet. Oncology (2022). PMID: 35709810 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[16]
Athanasiou A, Veroniki AA, Efthimiou O et al.. “Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.” The Lancet. Oncology (2022). PMID: 35835138 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[17]
Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A et al.. “Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review.” The Lancet. Oncology (2016). PMID: 27299280 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Intraoperative Considerations and Complications, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[18]
Plante M, Kwon JS, Ferguson S et al.. “Simple versus Radical Hysterectomy in Women with Low-Risk Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2024). PMID: 38416430 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[19]
Palefsky JM, Lee JY, Jay N et al.. “Treatment of Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions to Prevent Anal Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2022). PMID: 35704479 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[20]
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al.. “Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2018). PMID: 30380365 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[21]
Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S et al.. “Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2007). PMID: 17942872 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[22]
Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS et al.. “HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India.” The New England journal of medicine (2009). PMID: 19339719 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[23]
Altgassen C, Hertel H, Brandstädt A et al.. “Multicenter validation study of the sentinel lymph node concept in cervical cancer: AGO Study Group.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2008). PMID: 18565880 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Indications by Stage, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[24]
Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M et al.. “Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” JAMA oncology (2020). PMID: 32525511 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques
[25]
Nam JH, Park JY, Kim DY et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2012). PMID: 21841155 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[26]
Huang H, Feng YL, Wan T et al.. “Effectiveness of Sequential Chemoradiation vs Concurrent Chemoradiation or Radiation Alone in Adjuvant Treatment After Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: The STARS Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA oncology (2021). PMID: 33443541 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[27]
Cho WK, Park W, Kim SW et al.. “Postoperative Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy in Cervical Cancer: The POHIM-CCRT Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.” JAMA oncology (2024). PMID: 38662364 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[28]
Zhang J, Zhao Y, Dai Y et al.. “Effectiveness of High-risk Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in China: A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA oncology (2021). PMID: 33377903 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Indications by Stage
[29]
Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ et al.. “Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis.” The Lancet. Oncology (2014). PMID: 24433684 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[30]
Vosooney A, Witkop CT, Cantor AG et al.. “Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Recommendation From the Women's Preventive Services Initiative.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2026). PMID: 42024880 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage
[31]
. “Screening for Cervical Cancer.” Obstetrics and gynecology (2026). PMID: 42024877 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Indications by Stage
[32]
Höckel M, Wolf B, Schmidt K et al.. “Surgical resection based on ontogenetic cancer field theory for cervical cancer: mature results from a single-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study.” The Lancet. Oncology (2019). PMID: 31383547 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Intraoperative Considerations and Complications, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[33]
Kyrgiou M, Mitra A, Paraskevaidis E. “Fertility and Early Pregnancy Outcomes Following Conservative Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Early Cervical Cancer.” JAMA oncology (2016). PMID: 27356074 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[34]
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR et al.. “Cervical Cancer, Version 2.2015.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2015). PMID: 25870376 ↗
L1OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[35]
Pennington KP, Urban RR, Gray HJ. “Revisiting Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2019). PMID: 30659132 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[36]
Gray HJ. “Primary management of early stage cervical cancer (IA1-IB) and appropriate selection of adjuvant therapy.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2008). PMID: 18267058 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[37]
Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y. “Fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: indications and applications.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2010). PMID: 21147906 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[38]
Abdel-Rahman O. “Patterns and Trends of Cancer Screening in Canada: Results From a Contemporary National Survey.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2021). PMID: 33406489 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[39]
Kimball KJ, Huh WK. “Cytology versus high-risk HPV testing for follow-up of HPV-positive women without CIN.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2008). PMID: 18267062 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage
[40]
Sidonie M, Elisabete G. “Oncologic, pregnancy, and reproductive outcomes of fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review.” Surgical oncology (2026). PMID: 42114502 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[41]
Yokoi A, Machida H, Okazawa-Sakai M et al.. “Optimal adjuvant strategy in intermediate-risk cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” International journal of clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 42012622 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[42]
Lim JH, Yeap LL, Saw PS et al.. “Determinants of cervical cancer screening in Southeast Asia: A systematic review using the COM-B model and the theoretical domains framework.” Preventive medicine (2026). PMID: 41887293 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[43]
Verleye L, Vergote I, Reed N et al.. “Quality assurance for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: the view of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer--Gynecological Cancer Group (EORTC-GCG).” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2009). PMID: 19556323 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[44]
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH et al.. “Management of occult invasive cervical cancer found after simple hysterectomy.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2010). PMID: 19858083 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Intraoperative Considerations and Complications, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[45]
Shibata K, Kajiyama H, Ino K et al.. “Twist expression in patients with cervical cancer is associated with poor disease outcome.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2008). PMID: 17925286 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[46]
Coutant C, Barranger E, Cortez A et al.. “Frequency and prognostic significance of HPV DNA in sentinel lymph nodes of patients with cervical cancer.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17761707 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[47]
Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH et al.. “Outcomes after radical hysterectomy according to tumor size divided by 2-cm interval in patients with early cervical cancer.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2011). PMID: 20595451 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[48]
Devi BC, Tang TS, Corbex M. “Reducing by half the percentage of late-stage presentation for breast and cervix cancer over 4 years: a pilot study of clinical downstaging in Sarawak, Malaysia.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17434897 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[49]
Wentzensen N, Walker JL, Gold MA et al.. “Multiple biopsies and detection of cervical cancer precursors at colposcopy.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2015). PMID: 25422481 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[50]
Lai CH, Chang CJ, Huang HJ et al.. “Role of human papillomavirus genotype in prognosis of early-stage cervical cancer undergoing primary surgery.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17704412 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[51]
Castle PE, Glass AG, Rush BB et al.. “Clinical human papillomavirus detection forecasts cervical cancer risk in women over 18 years of follow-up.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2012). PMID: 22851570 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[52]
Woo PP, Kim JJ, Leung GM. “What is the most cost-effective population-based cancer screening program for Chinese women?” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17308266 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[53]
Kidd EA, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F et al.. “Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in cervical cancer: relationship to prognosis.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2010). PMID: 20308664 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[54]
Uppal S, Gehrig PA, Peng K et al.. “Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2020). PMID: 32031867 ↗
L3REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[55]
Wenzel HHB, Olthof EP, Bekkers RLM et al.. “Primary or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer with intraoperative lymph node metastasis - A review.” Cancer treatment reviews (2022). PMID: 34773774 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[56]
Querleu D, Morrow CP. “Classification of radical hysterectomy.” The Lancet. Oncology (2008). PMID: 18308255 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques
[57]
Rob L, Halaska M, Robova H. “Nerve-sparing and individually tailored surgery for cervical cancer.” The Lancet. Oncology (2010). PMID: 20202614 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage
[58]
Rob L, Skapa P, Robova H. “Fertility-sparing surgery in patients with cervical cancer.” The Lancet. Oncology (2011). PMID: 20619737 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[59]
Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F et al.. “Nodal-staging surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of PET.” The Lancet. Oncology (2012). PMID: 22554549 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques
[60]
Barbera L, Thomas G. “Venous thromboembolism in cervical cancer.” The Lancet. Oncology (2008). PMID: 18177817 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage, Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[61]
Ekeroma A, Dyer R, Palafox N et al.. “Cancer management in the Pacific region: a report on innovation and good practice.” The Lancet. Oncology (2019). PMID: 31395474 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Indications by Stage
[62]
Tu H, Huang H, Li Y et al.. “Sentinel-Lymph-Node Biopsy Alone or with Lymphadenectomy in Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2025). PMID: 41092328 ↗
L1OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Intraoperative Considerations and Complications, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[63]
Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L et al.. “Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2018). PMID: 30379613 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[64]
da Rocha KC, Castanha EB, Elias MEM et al.. “Human papillomavirus-based vs. cytology for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review with meta-analysis.” Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia (2026). PMID: 41988240 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[65]
Kim JH, Hwang WY, Choi CH et al.. “Oncologic outcomes and the impact of minimally invasive surgery in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical trachelectomy: A retrospective multicenter cohort study from the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 1048).” Gynecologic oncology (2026). PMID: 42013607 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[66]
Huang CB, Liao GD, Zhang SK et al.. “Risk of 3-Year Cytological Progression by Baseline HPV Status Among Women With Normal Cytology: A Multicenter Cohort Study.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 42011062 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Indications by Stage
[67]
Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE et al.. “Five-Year Risk of Cervical Precancer Following p16/Ki-67 Dual-Stain Triage of HPV-Positive Women.” JAMA oncology (2019). PMID: 30325982 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[68]
Nguyen AT, Luu M, Mallen-St Clair J et al.. “Comparison of Survival After Transoral Robotic Surgery vs Nonrobotic Surgery in Patients With Early-Stage Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.” JAMA oncology (2020). PMID: 32816023 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Operative Techniques, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[69]
. “HPV Testing Bests Pap for Cervical Screening.” Cancer discovery (2018). PMID: 30054288 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[70]
. “Simple Hysterectomy Safe for Some Cervical Cancers.” Cancer discovery (2023). PMID: 37276328 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[71]
. “Cervical Cancer Screening Every 5 Years OK.” Cancer discovery (2018). PMID: 30206109 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[72]
He C, Li F, He M et al.. “The false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy and its related factors in early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) (2026). PMID: 41837848 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Indications by Stage
[73]
Osawa N, Chikazawa K, Ko H et al.. “Follow-up by resident physicians is associated with underuse of hormone replacement therapy after cervical cancer treatment: A retrospective study.” European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology (2026). PMID: 42107240 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Indications by Stage, Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[74]
Sasano T, Mabuchi S, Kozasa K et al.. “The Highly Metastatic Nature of Uterine Cervical/Endometrial Cancer Displaying Tumor-Related Leukocytosis: Clinical and Preclinical Investigations.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2018). PMID: 29752277 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[75]
Soutter WP, Diakomanolis E, Lyons D et al.. “Dynamic spectral imaging: improving colposcopy.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2009). PMID: 19223500 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[76]
Rockall AG, Barwick TD, Wilson W et al.. “Diagnostic Accuracy of FEC-PET/CT, FDG-PET/CT, and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Detection of Nodal Metastases in Surgically Treated Endometrial and Cervical Carcinoma.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2021). PMID: 34526364 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[77]
Noordhuis MG, Eijsink JJ, Ten Hoor KA et al.. “Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and activated EGFR predict poor response to (chemo)radiation and survival in cervical cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2009). PMID: 19920104 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[78]
Yuan SH, Liang XF, Jia WH et al.. “Molecular diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in cervical cancer using squamous cell carcinoma antigen.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2008). PMID: 18765550 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[79]
Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE et al.. “Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2012). PMID: 22675168 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[80]
Stalp JL, Schneider JA, Steinkasserer L et al.. “Comparing clinical decision-making between colposcopists and large language models in cervical dysplasia management: a pilot prospective multicenter study.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2026). PMID: 42313159 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[81]
Sertel E. “Diagnostic Accuracy Rate of Tertiary Center Colposcopy Unit.” Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) (2026). PMID: 42274042 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Indications by Stage
[82]
Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F et al.. “Prospective multicenter study evaluating the survival of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy in the era of positron emission tomography imaging.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2013). PMID: 23857967 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Techniques
[83]
Lécuru F, Mathevet P, Querleu D et al.. “Bilateral negative sentinel nodes accurately predict absence of lymph node metastasis in early cervical cancer: results of the SENTICOL study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2011). PMID: 21444878 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Techniques, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[84]
Frumovitz M, Obermair A, Coleman RL et al.. “Quality of life in patients with cervical cancer after open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (LACC): a secondary outcome of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2020). PMID: 32502445 ↗
L1TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Techniques, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[85]
Frumovitz M, Plante M, Lee PS et al.. “Near-infrared fluorescence for detection of sentinel lymph nodes in women with cervical and uterine cancers (FILM): a randomised, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2018). PMID: 30143441 ↗
L1TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Techniques, Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[86]
Wu J, Li R, Chen H. “Comparison of open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42249382 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Operative Techniques
[87]
Raspagliesi F, Bogani G, Ditto A et al.. “Revisiting the Concept of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy: A Proof-of-Concept Prospective Study From a Cervical Cancer Cohort.” Annals of surgical oncology (2026). PMID: 42002718 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Operative Techniques
[88]
Kaido Y, Kagabu M, Chiba Y et al.. “Safety and oncologic outcomes of total laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy following diagnostic conization for adenocarcinoma in situ and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.” International journal of clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 41617964 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Operative Techniques, Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[89]
Hamada K, Umemiya M, Yamanoi K et al.. “Nationwide trends in surgery selection and minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer with preoperative T1B1/T1B2 disease in Japan.” International journal of clinical oncology (2026). PMID: 42286379 ↗
L2REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[90]
Kawecka W, Wilczyński JR, Tyczyńska M et al.. “The Role of Mesothelin in Gynecological Tumors and Its Significance in Targeted Therapies-A Review.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 42279275 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[91]
Viveros-Carreño D, Agustí N, Mora-Soto N et al.. “De-escalation in definitive surgical management for cervical cancer.” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2025). PMID: 41775568 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[92]
Mulugeta-Gordon L, Jang M, Dagher C et al.. “Advances in the Surgical Management of Cervical Cancer.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 41749881 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[93]
Tanioka M, Nagao S, Ida N et al.. “Fertility-sparing surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early and locally advanced cervical cancer: A clinical protocol.” PloS one (2026). PMID: 41529018 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Techniques
[94]
Costa MT, Tavares V, Adega F et al.. “Non-coding RNAs and liquid biopsies: Emerging biomarkers for cervical cancer.” Critical reviews in oncology/hematology (2026). PMID: 41412310 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[95]
Chen Y, Liu L, Chen Y et al.. “Prognostic factors influencing the cure rate of 5-Aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) of High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL): A retrospective cohort study.” Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy (2026). PMID: 41941918 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Operative Techniques
[96]
Chen Y, Deng L, Liu J et al.. “Robotic versus traditional laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy with no-manipulation technique: a retrospective cohort study.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 41783437 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Operative Techniques
[97]
Savci G, Sahin EA, Sahin H et al.. “Laparoscopic type 3 radical hysterectomy with enclosed colpotomy using the Bakay technique for early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective case series.” BMC women's health (2026). PMID: 41942963 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Operative Techniques
[98]
Bernigaud O, Arendas K, Paulus A et al.. “Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage at 15 weeks of gestation after trachelectomy: a step-by-step surgical video.” Fertility and sterility (2026). PMID: 41617042 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Operative Techniques
[99]
Nistor SI, Shao R, Conforti J et al.. “Precision, prevention and progress: charting two decades of change in gynaecological oncology-a narrative review.” Translational cancer research (2026). PMID: 42180877 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[100]
Nagdev P, Chittilla M. “Advances in Screening, Immunotherapy, Targeted Agents, and Precision Surgery in Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Clinical Review (2018-2025).” Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) (2026). PMID: 41590369 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Techniques
[101]
El-Safadi S, Bautista CE, Meinhold-Heerlein I et al.. “Comparative in vivo assessment of surgical smoke particle exposure from different energy modalities during gynecologic laparoscopy.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2026). PMID: 42257875 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Operative Techniques
[102]
Yu H, Liang H, Liang X et al.. “The influence of robotic-assisted systems on the surgical approach and outcomes in hysterectomy for benign and malignant diseases.” Journal of robotic surgery (2026). PMID: 42115535 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Operative Techniques
[103]
Schuurman TN, Schaafsma M, To KH et al.. “Optimising follow-up strategy based on cytology and human papillomavirus after fertility-sparing surgery for early stage cervical cancer: a nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study.” The Lancet. Oncology (2023). PMID: 37952541 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[104]
Lim H, Kim SI, Min KJ et al.. “Updated clinical practice guidelines for human papillomavirus vaccination: the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations.” Journal of gynecologic oncology (2026). PMID: 41775253 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[105]
Vincze Á, Márai D, Frivaldszky L et al.. “Neoadjuvant chemotherapy enables fertility preservation without compromising oncologic outcomes in early cervical cancer ≥2 cm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (2026). PMID: 41687593 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery, Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[106]
Zhao C, Li M, Chen R et al.. “Comparison of different mRNA testing technologies with HPV DNA testing for predicting ASCUS triage and post-cone excision outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Systematic reviews (2026). PMID: 41521305 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[107]
Pruski D, Millert-Kalińska S, Jach R et al.. “Impact of Vaccinating Adult Women Who Are HPV-Positive or with Confirmed Cervical SIL with the 9-Valent Vaccine-A Systematic Review.” Viruses (2025). PMID: 41157647 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[108]
Vajda G, Lakatos K, Lőczi L et al.. “Dynamic Changes in Systemic Inflammatory Indices Predict Residual High-Grade Lesions After Margin-Positive Cervical Conization: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.” Cancers (2026). PMID: 41976337 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[109]
Ma Y, Xu B, Zhang T et al.. “Risk factors of histologic upgrade between colposcopy-directed biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a retrospective study.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 41859136 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[110]
Nilsson HP, Bornhede R, Johansson ALV et al.. “Trends and outcomes of fertility preservation in patients presenting with cancer during pregnancy or postpartum-a longitudinal observational cohort study.” Frontiers in endocrinology (2026). PMID: 41778163 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[111]
Dolciami M, Criscione M, Bizzarri N et al.. “Accuracy and clinical impact of MRI in early-stage cervical cancer after cervical conization, a retrospective study.” European radiology (2026). PMID: 41413732 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[112]
Espías-Alonso M, Gorostidi M, Zapardiel I et al.. “Assessment of ESGO Quality Indicators and Factors Associated with Recurrence Following Surgery for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Journal of clinical medicine (2025). PMID: 41096121 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Fertility-Sparing Surgery
[113]
van Oosterom MN, Diaz-Feijóo B, Santisteban MI et al.. “Steerable DROP-IN radioguidance during minimal-invasive non-robotic cervical and endometrial sentinel lymph node surgery.” European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging (2024). PMID: 38233608 ↗
L4RCTCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[114]
Ao M, Zhao A, Wu Y et al.. “Predictive factors of sentinel lymph node mapping failure in cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (2025). PMID: 40555135 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[115]
Agustí N, Viveros-Carreño D, Mora-Soto N et al.. “Diagnostic accuracy of sentinel lymph node frozen section analysis in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Gynecologic oncology (2023). PMID: 37703622 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[116]
Chargari C, Martinez A, Michels J et al.. “[French recommendations for clinical practice, Nice/Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2024-2025: Management of localized cervical cancer].” Bulletin du cancer (2026). PMID: 41617621 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[117]
Wang K, Zhai Q, Xie Y et al.. “Sentinel node mapping with carbon nanoparticles versus lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer.” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2026). PMID: 41512771 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[118]
Meschini T, Giudici A, Longo M et al.. “Identifying low-volume metastases through ultrastaging of negative pelvic nodes in recurrent early-stage cervical cancer: a case series and literature review.” European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology (2025). PMID: 40644805 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[119]
Qu T, Zeng G, Yang J et al.. “Sentinel lymph node biopsy mapped with carbon nanoparticle suspensions in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Japanese journal of clinical oncology (2025). PMID: 40253673 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[120]
Laufer J, Scasso S, Papadia A. “Impact of Indocyanine Green Dose on Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review.” Cancers (2024). PMID: 39272965 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[121]
Kobayashi H, Yanazume S, Kamio M et al.. “Robotic trachelectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy for cervical cancer: a prospective study investigating minimally invasive radicality.” International journal of clinical oncology (2025). PMID: 40038151 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[122]
Persson J, Lührs O, Geppert B et al.. “A prospective study evaluating an optimized sentinel node algorithm in early stage cervical cancer: The PROSACC-study.” Gynecologic oncology (2024). PMID: 38788515 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping
[123]
Sehouli J, Runnebaum IB, Fotopoulou C et al.. “A randomized phase III adjuvant study in high-risk cervical cancer: simultaneous radiochemotherapy with cisplatin (S-RC) versus systemic paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by percutaneous radiation (PC-R): a NOGGO-AGO Intergroup Study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2012). PMID: 22357252 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[124]
Dueñas-González A, Zarbá JJ, Patel F et al.. “Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2011). PMID: 21444871 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[125]
Mileshkin LR, Moore KN, Barnes EH et al.. “Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2023). PMID: 37080223 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[126]
. “Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2008). PMID: 19001332 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[127]
Höckel M, Horn LC, Manthey N et al.. “Resection of the embryologically defined uterovaginal (Müllerian) compartment and pelvic control in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective analysis.” The Lancet. Oncology (2009). PMID: 19482513 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[128]
Höckel M, Trott S, Dornhöfer N et al.. “Vulvar field resection based on ontogenetic cancer field theory for surgical treatment of vulvar carcinoma: a single-centre, single-group, prospective trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2018). PMID: 29530664 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[129]
Tzioras S, Pavlidis N, Paraskevaidis E et al.. “Effects of different chemotherapy regimens on survival for advanced cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.” Cancer treatment reviews (2007). PMID: 17112673 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[130]
Corbeau A, Spampinato S, Charnalia M et al.. “Normal tissue complication probability models for gastrointestinal toxicity after adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for cervical cancer in the PARCER trial.” Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (2026). PMID: 41698508 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[131]
Willmott LJ, Sumner DA, Monk BJ. “Biologics in cervical cancer therapy.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2010). PMID: 21147904 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[132]
Loiselle C, Koh WJ. “The emerging use of IMRT for treatment of cervical cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2010). PMID: 21147905 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[133]
Kenter GG, Welters MJ, Valentijn AR et al.. “Phase I immunotherapeutic trial with long peptides spanning the E6 and E7 sequences of high-risk human papillomavirus 16 in end-stage cervical cancer patients shows low toxicity and robust immunogenicity.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2008). PMID: 18172268 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[134]
Kibudde S, Kavuma A, Abal B et al.. “Radiation therapy for cervical cancer in Uganda: a practice guideline.” Ecancermedicalscience (2025). PMID: 41561518 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[135]
Bellati F, Pernice M, Manci N et al.. “Hemoglobin variation and blood transfusion rates in patients affected by locally advanced cervical cancer undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery: the role of erythropoietic growth factors.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17307758 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[136]
Miao Z, Yang XL, Zhu JW et al.. “The differences of pelvic lymph node metastasis between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in early-stage cervical cancer patients undergoing radical surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy: a large cohort study.” Therapeutic advances in medical oncology (2026). PMID: 41783777 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[137]
Chu R, Wang Z, Shi S et al.. “Histology-specific prognostic models for early-stage cervical cancer based on pathologic intermediate-risk factors: a multi-center retrospective study.” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2026). PMID: 41576737 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[138]
Ouma GE, Asaso Omwodo K, Itsura P et al.. “Characterizing trimodal therapy outcomes by HIV status in early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study from a Kenyan tertiary centre.” BMC cancer (2026). PMID: 41796282 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[139]
Mercier NB, Khudina Y, Roberts L et al.. “Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer in Manitoba: A Retrospective Study of the Impact of Geography on Care.” Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) (2026). PMID: 41744835 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[140]
Höckel M, Hentschel B, Horn LC. “Association between developmental steps in the organogenesis of the uterine cervix and locoregional progression of cervical cancer: a prospective clinicopathological analysis.” The Lancet. Oncology (2014). PMID: 24656439 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[141]
Wang Y, Xie Y, Fang Y et al.. “Acupuncture combined with immunotherapy for recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer: a pilot RCT protocol.” Frontiers in oncology (2026). PMID: 41684588 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[142]
Agustí N, Viveros-Carreño D, Wu CF et al.. “Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy vs Radiotherapy Alone for Patients With Intermediate-Risk Cervical Cancer.” JAMA oncology (2025). PMID: 40079948 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[143]
Bahardoust M, Ghalavand N, Shamohammadi M et al.. “Pretreatment CRP-Albumin-Lymphocyte (CALLY) Index as a Prognostic Biomarker of Survival and Recurrence-Free Survival in Patients With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer After Radical Hysterectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.” Obstetrics and gynecology international (2026). PMID: 41635631 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)
[144]
Da Silva DM, Enserro DM, Mayadev JS et al.. “Immune Activation in Patients with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Treated with Ipilimumab Following Definitive Chemoradiation (GOG-9929).” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2020). PMID: 32816895 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters), Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[145]
Monk BJ, Sill MW, Burger RA et al.. “Phase II trial of bevacizumab in the treatment of persistent or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2009). PMID: 19139430 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[146]
Marucci da Silva GF, Pilger TL, Candido Dos Reis FJ. “Incidence of urologic co-morbidities after abdominal radical hysterectomy: a systematic review of clinical trials.” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2026). PMID: 41259843 ↗
L1TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[147]
Wang Y, Lu Q, Na J et al.. “Safety and efficacy of radical hysterectomy based on embryo development-originated in the treatment of early cervical cancer: a single-arm meta-analysis.” Journal of gynecologic oncology (2026). PMID: 40908746 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[148]
Takekuma M, Nishio S, Yamaguchi S et al.. “Atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and platinum chemotherapy in cervical cancer: results of Japanese population from BEATcc.” Journal of gynecologic oncology (2025). PMID: 40968753 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[149]
Wang Y, Zhang X, Wang F et al.. “Dosimetric and Clinical Effects of Polyethylene Glycol Gel in Radical Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer: A Phase 3 Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.” International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (2026). PMID: 40876576 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[150]
Yang X, Chen S, Li Y et al.. “Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with Karez technique for stage IB3 and IIA2 cervical cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.” International journal of surgery (London, England) (2025). PMID: 40387736 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[151]
Chikazawa K, Imai K, Ko H et al.. “Adjuvant chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy yields comparable outcomes to chemoradiation for stage IB2-IIB and IIIC1-2 cervical cancer: a single-center retrospective study.” Journal of gynecologic oncology (2025). PMID: 40114548 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[152]
Aagaard M, Á Rogvi J, Modin F et al.. “Short term complications of conisation and long term effects on fertility related outcomes in Denmark: register based nationwide cohort study.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) (2025). PMID: 39814419 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[153]
Zuo Y, Yang K, Zhang J et al.. “Factors influencing postoperative urinary retention after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: development and validation of a predictive model in a prospective cohort study in Southwest China.” BMJ open (2024). PMID: 39613445 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[154]
Hwang JH, Kim B. “Postoperative Urinary Complications in Minimally Invasive Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy: A Meta-Analysis With a Focus on Ureterovaginal Fistula.” Journal of minimally invasive gynecology (2025). PMID: 39710105 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[155]
Nakashima T, Matsumoto K, Yoshitake T et al.. “Impact of high-dose pelvic radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy on local control, symptom relief, and safety in patients with stage IVB cervical cancer (FIGO 2018): a two-center retrospective study.” Japanese journal of radiology (2026). PMID: 41441948 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[156]
Billone V, Gullo G, Conti E et al.. “Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Insights from a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study with Legal Considerations.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 40731845 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[157]
Zhang L, Yang L, Wang Y et al.. “Clinical comparative study of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.” BMC surgery (2024). PMID: 39731015 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Intraoperative Considerations and Complications
[158]
Laporte GA, Zanini LAG, Zanvettor PH et al.. “Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer.” Journal of surgical oncology (2020). PMID: 31777095 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[159]
Small W, Beriwal S, Demanes DJ et al.. “American Brachytherapy Society consensus guidelines for adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy after hysterectomy.” Brachytherapy (2012). PMID: 22265439 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[160]
Huang W, Fang X, Ou X et al.. “Postoperative Adjuvant Treatments for Cervical Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.” International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (2026). PMID: 40752650 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[161]
Schneider S, Armbrust R, Spies C et al.. “Prehabilitation programs and ERAS protocols in gynecological oncology: a comprehensive review.” Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2020). PMID: 31616986 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[162]
Chargari C, Peignaux K, Escande A et al.. “Radiotherapy of cervical cancer.” Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique (2022). PMID: 34955418 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[163]
Piovano E, Puppo A, Camanni M et al.. “Implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for hysterectomy in a hospital network with audit and feedback: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.” BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology (2024). PMID: 38404145 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[164]
Gil KM, Pugh SL, Klopp AH et al.. “Expanded validation of the EPIC bowel and urinary domains for use in women with gynecologic cancer undergoing postoperative radiotherapy.” Gynecologic oncology (2019). PMID: 31104905 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[165]
Li J, Huang J, Zhang J et al.. “A home-based, nurse-led health program for postoperative patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A randomized controlled trial.” European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society (2016). PMID: 26482004 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Postoperative Recovery and ERAS
[166]
Abu-Rustum NR, Campos SM, Amarnath S et al.. “Vaginal Cancer, Version 2.2026, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2026). PMID: 41825134 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[167]
Lorusso D, Colombo N, Dubot C et al.. “Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer: final analysis according to bevacizumab use in the randomized KEYNOTE-826 study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2025). PMID: 39393777 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[168]
Mayadev J, Vázquez Limón JC, Ramírez Godinez FJ et al.. “Ultrasensitive detection and tracking of circulating tumor DNA to predict relapse and survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: phase III CALLA trial analyses.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2025). PMID: 40500687 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[169]
Sugiyama T, Fujiwara K, Ohashi Y et al.. “Phase III placebo-controlled double-blind randomized trial of radiotherapy for stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer with or without immunomodulator Z-100: a JGOG study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2014). PMID: 24569914 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[170]
Kitagawa R, Katsumata N, Shibata T et al.. “Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Versus Paclitaxel Plus Cisplatin in Metastatic or Recurrent Cervical Cancer: The Open-Label Randomized Phase III Trial JCOG0505.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2015). PMID: 25732161 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[171]
Xia L, Zhang K, Tang Y et al.. “Camrelizumab Plus Famitinib versus Camrelizumab Alone and Investigator's Choice of Chemotherapy in Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer: A Randomized, Phase II Study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2025). PMID: 40561369 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[172]
Yang X, Ren H, Li Z et al.. “A phase III randomized, controlled trial of nedaplatin versus cisplatin concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer.” ESMO open (2022). PMID: 35994789 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[173]
Monk BJ, Toita T, Wu X et al.. “Durvalumab versus placebo with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer (CALLA): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2023). PMID: 38039991 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[174]
Oaknin A, Moore K, Meyer T et al.. “Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2024). PMID: 38608691 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[175]
Vergote I, González-Martín A, Fujiwara K et al.. “Tisotumab Vedotin as Second- or Third-Line Therapy for Recurrent Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2024). PMID: 38959480 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[176]
Tewari KS, Monk BJ, Vergote I et al.. “Survival with Cemiplimab in Recurrent Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2022). PMID: 35139273 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[177]
Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ et al.. “Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2014). PMID: 24552320 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[178]
. “Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions.” The New England journal of medicine (2007). PMID: 17494925 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[179]
Colombo N, Dubot C, Lorusso D et al.. “Pembrolizumab for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer.” The New England journal of medicine (2021). PMID: 34534429 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[180]
Penson RT, Huang HQ, Wenzel LB et al.. “Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: patient-reported outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology-Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 240).” The Lancet. Oncology (2015). PMID: 25638326 ↗
L1TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[181]
Birrer M, Li G, Yunokawa M et al.. “Bintrafusp Alfa for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer After Platinum Failure: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.” JAMA oncology (2024). PMID: 39052242 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[182]
Thaker PH, Salani R, Brady WE et al.. “A phase I trial of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and veliparib in the treatment of persistent or recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: an NRG Oncology Study (NCT#01281852).” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2017). PMID: 27998970 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[183]
Lorusso D, Ferrandina G, Pignata S et al.. “Evaluation of pemetrexed (Alimta, LY231514) as second-line chemotherapy in persistent or recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: the CERVIX 1 study of the MITO (Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer and Gynecologic Malignancies) Group.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2010). PMID: 19605508 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[184]
Zagouri F, Korakiti AM, Zakopoulou R et al.. “Taxanes during pregnancy in cervical cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.” Cancer treatment reviews (2019). PMID: 31442939 ↗
L3SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[185]
Vergote I, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, O'Cearbhaill RE et al.. “Tisotumab Vedotin in Combination With Carboplatin, Pembrolizumab, or Bevacizumab in Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer: Results From the innovaTV 205/GOG-3024/ENGOT-cx8 Study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2023). PMID: 37651655 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[186]
Frenel JS, Le Tourneau C, O'Neil B et al.. “Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Advanced, Programmed Death Ligand 1-Positive Cervical Cancer: Results From the Phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 Trial.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2017). PMID: 29095678 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[187]
Xu Q, Wang J, Sun Y et al.. “Efficacy and Safety of Sintilimab Plus Anlotinib for PD-L1-Positive Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Prospective Phase II Trial.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2022). PMID: 35192397 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[188]
O'Malley DM, Neffa M, Monk BJ et al.. “Dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 Checkpoint Blockade Using Balstilimab and Zalifrelimab Combination as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Cervical Cancer: An Open-Label Phase II Study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2022). PMID: 34932394 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[189]
Pötter R, Tanderup K, Schmid MP et al.. “MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer (EMBRACE-I): a multicentre prospective cohort study.” The Lancet. Oncology (2021). PMID: 33794207 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[190]
Coleman RL, Lorusso D, Gennigens C et al.. “Efficacy and safety of tisotumab vedotin in previously treated recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (innovaTV 204/GOG-3023/ENGOT-cx6): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.” The Lancet. Oncology (2021). PMID: 33845034 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[191]
Youn JW, Hur SY, Woo JW et al.. “Pembrolizumab plus GX-188E therapeutic DNA vaccine in patients with HPV-16-positive or HPV-18-positive advanced cervical cancer: interim results of a single-arm, phase 2 trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2020). PMID: 33271094 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[192]
Mayadev JS, Enserro D, Lin YG et al.. “Sequential Ipilimumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Curative-Intent Treatment of Patients With Node-Positive Cervical Cancer.” JAMA oncology (2020). PMID: 31774464 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[193]
Trutnovsky G, Muntinga C, Holter M et al.. “Risk factors for recurrence of vulvar high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions: long-term follow-up of the PITVIN Study (primary imiquimod vs surgery for vulvar intra-epithelial neoplasia).” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2026). PMID: 41791272 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[194]
Yonemori K, Nishio S, Suzuki S et al.. “Tisotumab vedotin in Japanese patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: results from the innovaTV 301/ENGOT-cx12/GOG-3057 trial.” International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society (2026). PMID: 41644383 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[195]
Kim SI, Kim JW, Kwon JS et al.. “Comparative outcomes of simple versus radical hysterectomy in patients with and without very low-risk early-stage cervical cancer: An exploratory analysis from the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup/Canadian Cancer Trials Group CX.5/SHAPE trial.” Gynecologic oncology (2026). PMID: 41520567 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[196]
Moore DH. “Chemotherapy for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic cervical cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2008). PMID: 18267059 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[197]
Xiang M, Kidd EA. “Benefit of Cisplatin With Definitive Radiotherapy in Older Women With Cervical Cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2019). PMID: 31390586 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[198]
Dyer BA, Zamarin D, Eskandar RN et al.. “Role of Immunotherapy in the Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent/Metastatic Cervical Cancer.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2019). PMID: 30659133 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[199]
Hong DS, Concin N, Vergote I et al.. “Tisotumab Vedotin in Previously Treated Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2020). PMID: 31796521 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[200]
Oaknin A, Ghamande SA, Kasamatsu Y et al.. “Phase I Trial of First-line Bintrafusp Alfa in Patients with Locally Advanced or Persistent/Recurrent/Metastatic Cervical Cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2024). PMID: 38165683 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[201]
Stevanović S, Helman SR, Wunderlich JR et al.. “A Phase II Study of Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy for Human Papillomavirus-associated Epithelial Cancers.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2019). PMID: 30518633 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[202]
Papadopoulos KP, Johnson ML, Lockhart AC et al.. “First-In-Human Study of Cemiplimab Alone or In Combination with Radiotherapy and/or Low-dose Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Advanced Malignancies.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2020). PMID: 31796520 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[203]
Kidd EA, Grigsby PW. “Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity of cervical cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2008). PMID: 18698042 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[204]
. “Prophylactic para-aortic irradiation vs pelvic radiotherapy in pelvic node-positive carcinoma cervix in the setting of concurrent chemoradiation: a phase II open-label multi centric randomized controlled trial (PRO-PARA).” Trials (2026). PMID: 41792812 ↗
L5RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[205]
Bonala SR, Raja SA, Subramanian BV et al.. “Randomized comparison of tandem-ring versus tandem-ovoid applicators in volume-based brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Dosimetric analysis and early clinical outcomes.” Brachytherapy (2026). PMID: 41679999 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[206]
Mi X, Lin T, Zhu X et al.. “Efficacy and safety of cadonilimab for malignant solid tumor treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42292353 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[207]
Zhang D, Meng Y, Dong X et al.. “Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with antiangiogenic agents in advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42253994 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[208]
Wang X, Zhang Y, Wang C et al.. “Efficacy and safety of first-line therapies for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer: a systematic review and exploratory network meta-analysis of immunotherapy.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42079658 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[209]
Panczel I, Herold M, Borbenyi E et al.. “Survival Difference in Advanced-Stage Cervical and Ovarian Cancer Patients Treated with Concomitant Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia in Comparison to Classic Treatment Modalities: Results of a Pilot Study and Meta-Analysis.” Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) (2026). PMID: 41892820 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[210]
Zhou L, Sun C, Diao P et al.. “Efficacy and safety of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 41869324 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[211]
Zhou J, Ye W, Ranarisoa SN et al.. “Comparison of drug regimens for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 41822503 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[212]
Zhuang Q, Liu Y. “Efficacy and safety of Cadonilimab in the treatment of recurrent/metastatic and advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2025). PMID: 41601625 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[213]
Shi A, Yerebake M, Du Z et al.. “Acupuncture as Adjunctive Therapy for Cervical Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of pain and symptom management (2026). PMID: 41482014 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[214]
Cho Y, Kim KH, Yoon HI et al.. “Tumor-related leukocytosis is associated with poor radiation response and clinical outcome in uterine cervical cancer patients.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2016). PMID: 27502717 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[215]
Han K, Zou J, Zhao Z et al.. “Clinical Validation of Human Papilloma Virus Circulating Tumor DNA for Early Detection of Residual Disease After Chemoradiation in Cervical Cancer.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2024). PMID: 37972346 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[216]
Dryden-Peterson S, Bvochora-Nsingo M, Suneja G et al.. “HIV Infection and Survival Among Women With Cervical Cancer.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2016). PMID: 27573661 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[217]
Monk BJ, Tewari KS, Koh WJ. “Multimodality therapy for locally advanced cervical carcinoma: state of the art and future directions.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17617527 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[218]
Long HJ. “Management of metastatic cervical cancer: review of the literature.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2007). PMID: 17617528 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[219]
Ventriglia J, Paciolla I, Pisano C et al.. “Immunotherapy in ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancer: State of the art and future perspectives.” Cancer treatment reviews (2017). PMID: 28800469 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[220]
Wieringa HW, van der Zee AG, de Vries EG et al.. “Breaking the DNA damage response to improve cervical cancer treatment.” Cancer treatment reviews (2016). PMID: 26643553 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[221]
Pectasides D, Kamposioras K, Papaxoinis G et al.. “Chemotherapy for recurrent cervical cancer.” Cancer treatment reviews (2008). PMID: 18657909 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[222]
Monk BJ, Enomoto T, Kast WM et al.. “Integration of immunotherapy into treatment of cervical cancer: Recent data and ongoing trials.” Cancer treatment reviews (2022). PMID: 35413489 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[223]
Tolcher A, Hamilton E, Coleman RL. “The evolving landscape of antibody-drug conjugates in gynecologic cancers.” Cancer treatment reviews (2023). PMID: 37023499 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[224]
Gennigens C, Jerusalem G, Lapaille L et al.. “Recurrent or primary metastatic cervical cancer: current and future treatments.” ESMO open (2022). PMID: 36108558 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[225]
Cabel L, Bonneau C, Bernard-Tessier A et al.. “HPV ctDNA detection of high-risk HPV types during chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.” ESMO open (2021). PMID: 34022731 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[226]
Westerveld H, Nesvacil N, Fokdal L et al.. “Definitive radiotherapy with image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for primary vaginal cancer.” The Lancet. Oncology (2020). PMID: 32135119 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[227]
Brunson A, Wun T, Abrahão R et al.. “Metastatic Recurrence Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer.” JAMA oncology (2026). PMID: 41296369 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[228]
Lheureux S, Butler MO, Clarke B et al.. “Association of Ipilimumab With Safety and Antitumor Activity in Women With Metastatic or Recurrent Human Papillomavirus-Related Cervical Carcinoma.” JAMA oncology (2018). PMID: 29145543 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[229]
Ishida S, McCormick F, Smith-McCune K et al.. “Enhancing tumor-specific uptake of the anticancer drug cisplatin with a copper chelator.” Cancer cell (2010). PMID: 20541702 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[230]
Miller KM, Friedman CF. “Bifunctional Blockade: A Novel Immunotherapy Approach for Cervical Cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2022). PMID: 35947045 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[231]
Tewari KS, Monk BJ. “New strategies in advanced cervical cancer: from angiogenesis blockade to immunotherapy.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2014). PMID: 25104084 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[232]
Seo A, Xiao W, Gjyshi O et al.. “Human Papilloma Virus Circulating Cell-Free DNA Kinetics in Patients with Cervical Cancer Undergoing Definitive Chemoradiation.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2025). PMID: 39680029 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[233]
Sivars L, Jylhä C, Crona Guterstam Y et al.. “Cell-Free Human Papillomavirus DNA Is a Sensitive Biomarker for Prognosis and for Early Detection of Relapse in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2024). PMID: 38669077 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[234]
Chen J, Chen C, Zhan Y et al.. “Heterogeneity of IFN-Mediated Responses and Tumor Immunogenicity in Patients with Cervical Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2021). PMID: 33766815 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[235]
Leo C, Horn LC, Rauscher C et al.. “Expression of erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptor in cervical cancer and relationship to survival, hypoxia, and apoptosis.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2006). PMID: 17145806 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[236]
Kim SS, Shen S, Miyauchi S et al.. “B Cells Improve Overall Survival in HPV-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinomas and Are Activated by Radiation and PD-1 Blockade.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2020). PMID: 32193227 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach
[237]
Fjeldbo CS, Julin CH, Lando M et al.. “Integrative Analysis of DCE-MRI and Gene Expression Profiles in Construction of a Gene Classifier for Assessment of Hypoxia-Related Risk of Chemoradiotherapy Failure in Cervical Cancer.” Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research (2016). PMID: 27012812 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Outcomes by Stage and Approach

Cervical Cancer Surgical Management

Quick Reference

Overview and Recommendations

Background

Evaluation

Management

Board Review — High Yield

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Indications by Stage

Microinvasive and Low-Risk Disease (Stages IA1–IB1)

Early-Stage Radical Intervention (Stages IB1–IIA1)

Locally Advanced Disease (Stages IB3–IIB)

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Operative Techniques

Radical Hysterectomy and the Querleu-Morrow Classification

The Shift to Open Surgery (LACC Trial)

De-escalation: Simple Hysterectomy and the SHAPE Trial

Fertility-Sparing Trachelectomy

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping and Para-aortic Staging

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Fertility-Sparing Surgery

Patient Selection and Preoperative Workup

Surgical Techniques and Radicality

Reproductive Outcomes and Surveillance

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping

Tracer Selection and Technique

The Surgical Algorithm

Pathologic Ultrastaging and Intraoperative Assessment

Oncologic Outcomes

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Adjuvant Therapy Triggers (Sedlis / Peters)

High-Risk Disease: The Peters Criteria

Intermediate-Risk Disease: The Sedlis Criteria

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Intraoperative Considerations and Complications

Respiratory Monitoring

Autonomic Complications

DVT/PE Prophylaxis

Pain Management

Rehabilitation and Hospital-Acquired Complications

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Postoperative Recovery and ERAS

Recovery Timeline and Functional Outcomes

Long-term Sequelae and Support

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Outcomes by Stage and Approach

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Related Pages

References