Ramirez, PT, et al. minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379(20):1895–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alfonzo, E, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer 2019;116:169–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Falconer, H, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29(6):1072–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chiva, L, et Al. SUCCOR study. An international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 (FIGO 2009, <4 cm) cervical cancer operated in 2013–2014. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:1269–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohler, C, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with transvaginal closure of vaginal cuff – a multicenter analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29(5):845–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramirez, PT, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Melamed, A, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1905–1914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Obermair, A, et al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222:249.e1–249.e10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frumovitz, M, 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. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:851–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nitecki, R, et al. Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:1019–1027. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Panici, PB, et al. Tailoring the parametrectomy in stages IA2-IB1 cervical carcinoma: is it feasible and safe? Gynecol Oncol 2005;96:792–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frumovitz, M, et al. Parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens for women with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:93–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Park, JY, et al. Management of occult invasive cervical cancer found after simple hysterectomy. Ann Oncol 2010;21:994–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sia, TY, et al. Trends in use and effect on survival of simple hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:1132–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wu, J, et al. Less-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224(4):348–358.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ramirez, PT, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1895–1904.Google Scholar

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer. Available at: www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Retrieved September 11, 2020.Google Scholar

Covens, A, et al. How important is removal of the parametrium at surgery for carcinoma of the cervix? Gynecol Oncol 2002;84(1):145–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tseng, JH, et al. Less versus more radical surgery in stage IB1 cervical cancer: a population-based study of long-term survival. Gynecol Oncol 2018;150:44–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sia, TY, et al. Trends in use and effect on survival of simple hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:1132–1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Li, X, et al. Simple conization and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2020;158(2):231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schmeler, K, et al. Concerv: a prospective trial of conservative surgery for low-risk early-stage cervical cancer Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29:A14–A15.Google Scholar

Roy, M, et al. Pregnancies after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:1491–1496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bhosale, PR, et al. Is MRI helpful in assessing the distance of the tumour from the internal os in patients with cervical cancer below FIGO Stage IB2? Clin Radiol 2016;71:515–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

van Kol KGG, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy versus chemotherapy followed by vaginal radical trachelectomy in stage 1B2 (FIGO 2018) cervical cancer. A systematic review on fertility and recurrence rates. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:515–521.Google Scholar

Burnett, AF. Radical trachelectomy with laparoscopic lymphadenectomy: review of oncologic and obstetrical outcomes, Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006;18:8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Plante, M, et al. FIGO 2018 stage IB2 (2–4 cm) Cervical cancer treated with Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by fertility Sparing Surgery (CONTESSA); Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Conservative Surgery in Cervical Cancer to Preserve Fertility (NEOCON-F). A PMHC, DGOG, GCIG/CCRN and multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29:969–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fokom Domgue, J, et al. Conservative management of cervical cancer: current status and obstetrical implications. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2019;55:79–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Plante, M, et al. FIGO 2018 stage IB2 (2–4 cm) cervical cancer treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by fertility sparing surgery (CONTESSA); neoadjuvant chemotherapy and conservative surgery in cervical cancer to preserve fertility (NEOCON-F). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2019;29:969–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

van Kol, KGG, et al. Abdominal radical trachelectomy versus chemotherapy followed by vaginal radical trachelectomy in stage 1B2 (FIGO 2018) cervical cancer. A systematic review on fertility and recurrence rates. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:515–521.Google ScholarPubMed

Li, X, et al. Reproductive and obstetric outcomes after abdominal radical trachelectomy (ART) for patients with early-stage cervical cancers in Fudan, China. Gynecol Oncol 2020;157:418–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bentivegna, E, et al. Fertility results and pregnancy outcomes after conservative treatment of cervical cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1195–1211(e5).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, J, et al. Completion hysterectomy after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced adeno-type cervical carcinoma: updated survival outcomes and experience in post radiation surgery. J Gynecol Oncol 2020;31(2):e16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keys, HM, et al. Radiation therapy with and without extrafascial hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma: a randomized trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89(3):343–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morice, P, et al. Results of the GYNECO 02 study, an FNCLCC phase III trial comparing hysterectomy with no hysterectomy in patients with a (clinical and radiological) complete response after chemoradiation therapy for stage IB2 or II cervical cancer. Oncologist 2012;17(1):64–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cetina, L, 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. Ann Oncol 2013;24(8):2043–2047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shim, SH, et al. Impact of adjuvant hysterectomy on prognosis in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Gynecol Oncol 2018;29(2):e25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lu, W, et al. Chemoradiotherapy alone vs. chemoradiotherapy and hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Oncol Lett 2021;21(2):160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, J, et al. Extrafascial hysterectomy after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical adenocarcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol 2016;27(4):e40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keys, HM, et al. Cisplatin, radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage Ib cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;341:708.Google Scholar

Chargari, C, et al. Brachytherapy: an overview for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:386–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Touboul, C, et al. Prognostic factors and morbidities after completion surgery in patients undergoing initial chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. Oncologist 2010;15:405–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keys, HM, et al. Gynecologic Oncology Group. Radiation therapy with and without extrafascial hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma: a randomized trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:343–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morice, P, et al. Results of the GYNECO O2/108 phase III trial. Results of the GYNECO 02 study, an FNCLCC phase III trial comparing hysterectomy with no hysterectomy in patients with a (clinical and radiological) complete response after chemoradiation therapy for stage IB2 or II cervical cancer. Oncologist 2012;17:64–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cetina, L, 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. Ann Oncol 2013;24:2043–2047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tierney, J. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 21 randomised trials. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:2470–2486.Google Scholar

Gupta, S, 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. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(16):1548–1555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kenter, G, et al. Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ib2–IIb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(15):5503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buda, A, et al. Randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy comparing paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by radical surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cervical carcinoma: the SNAP01 (studio neo-adjuvante portio) Italian collaborative study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4137–4145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Salihi, R, et al. Neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel-carboplatin is effective in stage I–II cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27(6):1256–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer Meta-Analysis Collaboration. Reducing uncertainties about the effects of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5802–5812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koh, WJ, et al. Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17(1):64–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gupta, S, 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. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(16):1548–1555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kenter, G, et al. Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ib2–IIb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994. 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting; May 31 to June 4, 2019; Chicago, IL: American Society of Clinical Oncology. Abstract 5503.Google Scholar

Tan, LT, et al. Image-guided adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2019;29(3):284–298.Google Scholar

Chung, HC, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in previously treated advanced cervical cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:1470–1478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Naumann, RW, et al. Safety and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent or metastatic cervical, vaginal, or vulvar carcinoma: results from the phase I/II Check Mate 358 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2825–2834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Trimble, CL, et al. Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of VGX-3100, a therapeutic synthetic DNA vaccine targeting human papillomavirus 16 and 18 E6 and E7 proteins for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet 2015;386:2078–2088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stevanovic, S, et al. Complete regression of metastatic cervical cancer after treatment with human papillomavirus-targeted tumor-infiltrating T cells. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1543–1550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Doran, SL, et al. T-cell receptor gene therapy for human papillomavirus-associated epithelial cancers: a first-in-human, phase I/II study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2759–2768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lheureux, S, et al. Association of ipilimumab with safety and antitumor activity in women with metastatic or recurrent human papillomavirus–related cervical carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2018;4(7):e173776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chung, HC, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in previously treated advanced cervical cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(17):1470–1478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frenel, J-S, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in advanced, programmed death ligand 1–positive cervical cancer: results from the phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(36):4035–4041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boussios, S, et al. Management of patients with recurrent/advanced cervical cancer beyond first line platinum regimens: where do we stand? A literature review. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 2016;108:164–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Naumann, RW, et al. Safety and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent or metastatic cervical, vaginal, or vulvar carcinoma: results from the phase I/II CheckMate 358 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(31):2825–2834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Naumann, RW, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with recurrent /metastatic cervical cancer: results from Checkmate 358. Ann Oncol 2019;30 (Suppl. 5):v851–v934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar