<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JCT</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Cancer Therapy</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2151-1934</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jct.2015.611109</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JCT-60700</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Survival and Prognostic Factors in Patients with Carcinoma of Cervical Stump
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>anan</surname><given-names>Ahmed Wahba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hend</surname><given-names>Ahmed El-Hadaad</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Waleed</surname><given-names>Nabeel Abozeed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Waleed</surname><given-names>Elnahas</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sameh</surname><given-names>Roshdy</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anas</surname><given-names>Gamal</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Surgical Oncology Unit, Mansoura Oncology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>hend_am@mans.edu.eg(HAE)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>10</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>1008</fpage><lpage>1012</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>10</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>25</month>	<year>October</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Purpose: To evaluate patients with carcinoma of cervical stump (CCS) and analyse different clinico-pathologic factors affect prognosis. Patients and Methods: This study was carried out through review of clinical records of patients. Recorded data included information on age, tumor stage, presenting symptoms, size of tumor, histopathology, grade, type, cause of subtotal hysterectomy (STH), treatment and follow-up results. Staging according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system was done through: PHYSICAL examination, pelvic examination under anaesthesia, chest X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen and pelvis, cystoscopy, rectosigmoidoscopy and intravenous pyelography. Prognostic factors as age, size of tumor, stage, lymph node (LN) involvement, pathological type, grade and type of CCS either true or coincidental were analysed through multivariate analysis. Results: 62% of patients are above 50 years with stage II in 48.7%. Squamous cell carcinoma was more common but 54% are of GIII. 89% were true CCS. Positive lymph nodes were reported in 27%. The predominant reason for STH was abnormal bleeding (73%). In about 95% of cases, women seeked medical attention because of symptoms and the most common presenting symptom was bleeding (54%). According to the stage and performance status of patients, treatment consisted of radiotherapy either external or interstitial, chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Through multivariate analysis, the following was found to have adverse impact on survival: Coincidental type (P = 0.04), high grade (P = 0.03), advanced stage (P = 0.01), larger tumor size (P = 0.02), lymph node involvement (P = 0.029) and older age (P = 0.035). While pathological type was not (P = 0.52). After median follow-up of 52 months; 5-year overall survival was 65%. Conclusion: CCS has a low morbidity. Adverse survival outcomes can be anticipated in those patients with: high grade lesions, advanced stages, large tumor size, coincidental type, older age and positive lymph node involvement.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Carcinoma of Cervical Stump</kwd><kwd> Chemo-Radiotherapy</kwd><kwd> Radiotherapy</kwd><kwd> Survival and Prognostic Factors</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Sparing the cervix at time of hysterectomy which called subtotal hysterectomy (STH) was carried out in the past in order to reduce surgical complications as blood loss, vaginal vault prolapse, enterocele, ureteral injuries and vaginal cuff abscess [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref1">1</xref>] . However, three randomized controlled trials comparing perioperative or post-operative complications of total hysterectomy versus STH, concluded that there is no clinically significant difference between blood loss and surgical time in both approaches despite that STH may be associated with less blood loss and shorter surgical time [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref2">2</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref4">4</xref>] . Also, it was suggested that the retaining cervix reduce the adverse effect on psychosexual behavior of the patients. Roovers and colleagues [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref5">5</xref>] found that sexual activity did not change after surgery whether it was total or subtotal hysterectomy, this finding was also reported by El-Touky et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref6">6</xref>] . But, the retaining cervix carries the risk of developing cervical stump symptoms as vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain and cervical malignancy. Carcinoma of cervical stump (CCS) has been divided into: 1) Coincidental cases, when detected within 2 years after hysterectomy suggesting presence of pre-existing disease that not recognized at time of surgery; 2) True cases, when detected later than 2 years and considered to arise de novo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref1">1</xref>] . The aim of this study is to retrospectively review patients with CCS as regard age, clinical stage, histopathology, treatment and survival, also to determine clinico-pathologic factors which are prognostic for patients with CCS.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Patients and Methods</title><p>A retrospective review of the records of patients with CCS attended to Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Mansoura University at the period from January 2000 to December 2013. Recorded data included information on age, tumor stage, presenting symptoms, size of tumor, histopathology, type, cause of STH, treatment and follow-up results, the institutional review board approved the study. Staging according to FIGO staging system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref7">7</xref>] was carried out through: Physical examination, pelvic examination under anaesthesia, chest xray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen and pelvis, cystoscopy, rectosigmoidoscopy and intravenous pyelography. After treatment, all patients were followed-up every 3 months for the first year then every 4 - 6 months for 3 years then annually. At each visit, full physical examination was performed.MRI of abdomen and pelvis was done every six months.</p><p>Prognostic factors as age, size of tumor, stage, lymph node (LN) involvement, pathological type, grade and type of CCS either true or coincidental were analysed through multivariate analysis.</p>Statistical Methods<p>Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis, Number and percentage for demographic data. The categorical variables were compared using chi-square and Fisher’s Exact test. P-value of ˂0.05 indicate statistical significance. Kaplan-Meier test was used for survival function.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>This study included 37 patients <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> showed their demographic data; mean age was 54 years, 62% of patients are above 50 years with stage II in 48.7%. Squamous cell carcinoma was more common but 54% are of GIII. 89% were true CCS. Positive lymph nodes were reported in 27%.</p><p>The predominant reason for STH was abnormal bleeding (73%). In about 95% of cases, women seeked medical attention because of symptoms and the most common presenting symptom was bleeding (54%).</p><p>According to the stage and performance status of patients, treatment consisted of radiotherapy either external or interstitial, chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Seventeen cases were treated by surgery followed by radiotherapy in the form of external pelvic irradiation at dose of 45 - 50 Gy followed by brachytherapy. Five cases received neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by surgery, 11 patients were treated by chemoradiotherapy and</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Demographic data</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Character</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >%</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age: mean (range)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 (43 - 68) years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≤50 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;50 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FIGO stage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >II</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IV</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pathological type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Adenocarcinoma (AC)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Presenting symptoms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bleeding</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal discharge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combined symptoms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Incident discovery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Type of CCS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >True</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Coincidental</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Causes of STH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal uterine bleeding</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Endometrial cancer</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cervical cancer</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Size of tumor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≤4 cm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;4 cm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grade</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GII</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GIII</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lymph node involvement</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Positive</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Negative</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Over All Survival (OAS)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/8-8902221x5.png"/></fig><p>4 received chemotherapy alone.</p><p>Through multivariate analysis; the following was found to have adverse impact on survival: Coincidental type (P = 0.04), high grade (P = 0.03), advanced stage (P = 0.01), larger tumor size (P = 0.02), lymph node involvement (P = 0.029) and older age (P = 0.035). While pathological type was not (P = 0.52).</p><p>After median follow-up of 52 months; 5-year overall survival was 65% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The main disadvantage of STH is the risk of developing CCS and the requirement for regular cervical screening following surgery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref8">8</xref>] . So STH should be avoided whenever possible. CCS is found in 1% - 3% of patients with STH and accounts for 3% - 9% of all cervical cancer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref10">10</xref>] .</p><p>In our series; mean age was 54 years that was less than found by Hellstr&#246;m A.C., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>Igboeli P., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref12">12</xref>] reported higher incidence of true CCS similar to that found in our patients.</p><p>The majority of our cases were diagnosed as stage II (48.7%) and most of them with SCC (92%), similar finding were reported by Hannoun-Levi J.M., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref13">13</xref>] and Petersen L.K. et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>Only 5% of cases were incidentally discovered. This can be explained by lack of screening after STH or some patients may not have received adequate information about the extent of the hysterectomy and therefore may have erroneously concluded that they no longer need cancer screening. Patients with coincidental CCS does worse than true one that was also found by Gibbons SK, Keys HM [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref15">15</xref>] . This can be explained by presence of disease which not recognized at time of STH.</p><p>It was found that AC cases had worse prognosis compares with the squamous cases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref16">16</xref>] . But there was no significant impact of pathological type on survival in our patients; this result is not conclusive because of small number of AC patients (8%).</p><p>Our results support the suggestion that high-grade, large tumor size (4 cm) and positive lymph node involvement adversely affect survival [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref17">17</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Calais G., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref20">20</xref>] mentioned that stage and nodal status had impact on prognosis; similar to our finding. Most authors have reported that experienced institutions can achieve survival results in patients with CCS comparable to those that are achieved in patients with carcinoma of intact cervix [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref21">21</xref>] . However, Igboeli P., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref12">12</xref>] has reported superior results with CCS cases when compared to those with an intact uterine cervix. In our patients, 5-year overall survival rate was comparable to that reported by Calais G., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref20">20</xref>] and Chen L., et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.60700-ref22">22</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>CCS has a low morbidity. Adverse survival outcomes can be anticipated in those patients with: high grade lesions, advanced stages, large tumor size, coincidental type, older age and positive lymph node involvement.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Hanan AhmedWahba,Hend AhmedEl-Hadaad,Waleed NabeelAbozeed,WaleedElnahas,SamehRoshdy,AnasGamal, (2015) Survival and Prognostic Factors in Patients with Carcinoma of Cervical Stump. Journal of Cancer Therapy,06,1008-1012. doi: 10.4236/jct.2015.611109</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.60700-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hasson</surname><given-names> H.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1993</year>)<article-title>Cervical Removal at Hysterectomy for Benign Disease, Risk and Benefits</article-title><source> The Journal of Reproductive Medicine</source><volume> 38</volume>,<fpage> 781</fpage>-<lpage>790</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thakar, R., Ayers, S., Clarkson, P., Stanton, S. and Manyonda, I. (2002) Outcome after Total versus Subtotal Abdominal Hysterectomy. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1318-1325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa013336</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Learman, L.A., Summitt Jr., R.L., Varner, R.E., McNeeley, S.G., Goodman-Gruen, D., Richter, H.E., et al. (2003) Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy (TOSH) Research Group. A Randomized Comparison of Total or Supracervical Hysterectomy: Surgical Complications and Clinical Outcomes. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 102, 453-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00664-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gimbel, H., Zobbe, V., Andersen, B.M., Filtenborg, T., Gluud, C., et al. (2003) Randomised Controlled Trial of Total Compared with Subtotal Hysterectomy with One-Year Follow-Up Results. BJOG, 110, 1088-1098. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.02395.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roovers, J.P., van der Bom, J.G., van der Vaart, C.H. and Heintz, A.P. (2003) Hysterectomy and Sexual Wellbeing: Prospective Observational Study of vaginal Hysterectomy, Subtotal Abdominal Hysterectomy, and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy. BMJ, 327, 774-778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7418.774</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El-Toukhy, T.A., Hefni, M., Davies, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2004) The Effect of Different Types of Hysterectomy on Urinary and Sexual Function: A Prospective Study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 24, 420-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443610410001685574</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pecorelli, S., Zigliani, L. and Odicino, F. (2009) Revised FIGOs Staging for Carcinoma of the Cervix. International Journal of Gynecology &amp; Obstetrics, 105, 107-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pricop, M., Cocos, M., Aursulesei, D., Strat, L., Gafencu, C. and Bendescu, M. (1999) Cancer of the Cervical Stump. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat lasi, 103, 161-162.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hellstrom, A.C., Sigurjonson, T. and Pettersson, F. (2001) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump. The Radiumhemmet Series1959-1987. Treatment and Prognosis. A Case Control Study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 80, 152-157.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Pettersson, F. (1998) Secondary Prevention. Screening for Carcinoma of the Cervix. In: Kavanagh, J.J., et al., Eds., Cancer in Women, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 240-250.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hellstrom, A.C., Hellman, K., Pettersson, B.F. and Andersson, S. (2011) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump: Fifty Years of Experience. Oncology Reports, 25, 1651-1654.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Igboeli, P., Kapp, D.S., Lawrence, R. and Schwartz, P.E. (1983) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump: Comparison of Radation Therapy Factors, Survival and Patterns of Failure with Carcinoma of the Intact Uterus. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 9, 153-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(83)90092-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hannoun-Lévi, J.M., Peiffert, D., Hoffstetter, S., Luporsi, E., Bey, P. and Pernot, M. (1997) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump: Retrospective Analysis of 77 Cases. Radiotherapy &amp; Oncology, 43, 147-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8140(97)01918-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Petersen, L.K., Mamsen, A. and Jakobsen, A. (1992) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump. Gynecologic Oncology, 46, 199-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(92)90255-h</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Gibbons, S.K. and Keys, H.M. (1996) Special Situations in the Management of Early Cervical Cancer. In: Rubin, S.C., Hoskins, W.J., Eds., Cervical Cancer and Preinvasive Neoplasia, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, 259-260.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Goodman, H.M., Niloff, J.M., Buttlar, C.A., Welch, W.R., Marck, A., Feuer, E.J., et al. (1989) Adenocarcinoma of the Cervical Stump. Gynecologic Oncology, 35, 188-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(89)90041-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miller, B.E., Copeland, L.J., Hamberger, A.D., Gershenson, D.M., Saul, P.B., Herson, J., et al. (1984) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump. Gynecologic Oncology, 18, 100-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(84)90012-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barillot, I., Horiot, J.C., Cuisenier, J., Pigneux, J., Schraub, S., Rozan, R., et al. (1993) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump: A Review of 213 Cases. European Journal of Cancer, 39, 1231-1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-8049(93)90063-L</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kovalic, J.J., Grigsby, P.W., Perez, C.A. and Lockett, M.A. (1991) Cervical Stump Carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 20, 933-938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(91)90188-a</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Calais, G., Leloup, R., Chauvet, B., Body, G., Lansac, J., Bougnoux, P., et al. (1989) Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump. Retrospective Analysis of 43 Cases. Bull Cancer, 76, 1103-1110.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Porpora, M.G., Nobili, F., Pietrangeli, D. and Falqui, L. (1991) Cervical Stump Carcinoma Therapy. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 12, 45-50.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.60700-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chen, L., Xia, T., Yang, Z. and Zhu, J. (2009) Comprehensive Treatment and Prognostic Factors in Patients with Carcinoma of the Cervical Stump. Clinical Oncology and Cancer Research, 6, 426-429.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>