Background: Considerable efforts have been carried out over the past 30 years to support patients with advanced cervical cancer. Throughout this time, Eastern European countries have been left aside from the decision-making groups on this matter, hence the absence of similar studies in this geographical area. In these countries, the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cervical cancer might be considered a “caprice”, and the discomforts they encounter following pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer are often perceived as a “normal phenomenon”. Methods: This study examined forty-seven patients submitted to pelvic exenteration followed up for nine years after the surgical intervention. The first objective of this study is to identify the prognostic factors that influence the overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for FIGO stage IVA, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer after previous conclusive treatments. The second objective is to assess the QoL of the surviving patients using the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CX24 standardized questionnaires. Results: The mean age of the participants was 54 years (range 36−67). At the time of the study, there were 25 living patients (53.2%), the 3-year OS was 61%, and the 5-year OS was 48.7%. Cox regression analysis recognized parameter invasion, pelvic lymph node metastases, positive resection margins, early postoperative complications, and infralevatorian pelvic exenteration as negative prognostic factors influencing the OS (p < 0.05). Of the 25 survivors, 18 patients answered the QoL questionnaires. The cost of favorable survival has been translated into poor overall QoL, unsatisfactory functional, social, and symptom scores, a high prevalence of cervical cancer-specific symptoms such as lymphedema, peripheral neuropathy, severe menopausal symptoms, distorted body image, and lack of sexual desire. The lower scores are comparable to the only three studies available in the literature that assessed the QoL of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration precisely for cervical cancer. Conclusions: Despite its retrospective nature and some limitations, this paper, similar to other studies, shows a decent OS but with a marked adverse impact on QoL, suggesting the importance of adequate psycho-emotional and financial support for these patients following pelvic exenteration. This study also contributes to the current knowledge regarding advanced cervical cancer treatment, depicting survival, prognostic factors, and QoL of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for cervical cancer in a reference center in Eastern Europe. Our study can provide a comparison for future prospective randomized trials needed to confirm these results.
Keywords: QLQ-C30; QLQ-CX24; cervical cancer; pelvic exenteration; quality of life; survival.