0 Items £0.00


3 posts / 0 new
Last post


I'm looking for those to please share your pathology results from your RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY. Can you please tell me what the factors were for putting you in to the 'further treatment' category? Did you have:

- LVSI? 
- Lymph Node Involvement?

- Depth Of Invasion found? (In mm) 
- Margins? (In mm) 

- what risk of recurrence (%) were you given? 

im looking for those who were still offered or suggested radiation therapy after surgery and what in your pathology lead to that suggestion? Thank you. 

Jazza's picture

Hi BRivera

My surgeon said there I had a 90% chance  of a surgical cure so I was very upset to be advised to have chemo-radio after my radical hysterectomy.  My post op lab results staged my cancer as 2A1 (38mm 1B1 old FIGO - pre surgery) and also indicated LVSI, PNI and close margins including 0.4mm anterior margin.  My lymph nodes were clear.  I believe my cancer was grade 2 although some of my reports say grade 3!

I had Da Vinci robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy in 2017; since then open surgery seems to be favoured because it apparently gives a slightly better cure rate.

Sounds like you have a tricky dilemma?


  • Feb 04:  (age 47y) Smear test normal
  • Stopped going for smears!
  • Summer 16: persistent watery yellow vaginal discharge
  • Dec 16: PMB
  • Jan 17: Hysteroscopy under GA for ?fibroids - abnormal cervix observed -multiple biopsies taken, 1B1 (1B2 on new FIGO) squamous cell cc diagnosed - confirmed by MRI/PET scans
  • Feb 17: pelvic lymphadenectomy - nodes negative, Da Vinci radical hysterectomy- close anterior margin/LVSI/PNI, restaged to 2A1 (2A1 on new FIGO)
  • Apr/May 17: 6 chemo, 25 external radio, 2 brachy
  • Apr 21:  NED.  Side effects notably hypotonic bladder since hysterectomy - ongoing ISC, unilateral lymphoedema lower abdo/groin/leg/ankle/foot
xRay's picture

Hi, BRivera!

Statistics are the average data. In each particular case, more than one doctor will not say 100 % how and what will happen.

Doctors say that the optimal pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a prognostic factor. Someone cites data that lymphovascular invasion does not significantly affect the prognosis.

Many agree that laparotomy has a greater oncological safety than laparoscopy. They also say that much depends on the clinic and its surgeons. In different clinics and different surgeons, the survival statistics are different (for example, the surgeons of Landoni, Lebedev vs Ungar, Hockel and Morkhov)

Experienced patients themselves say that it is possible that the survival rate is affected by a change in lifestyle. Complete rejection of bad habits, complete transition to proper nutrition, change of work, reduction of stressful situations. At least on the Russian oncoforum, there was a roll call of the survivors. In this topic conversation about how many perishing people on Forum buried, and life nothing people not teaches. Some of the experienced patients point to the correct rehabilitation after radical treatment. Proper bowel function, restoration of hemoglobin levels, they consider the source of their remission. Maybe this is true and there is some grain of truth in it. 
Someone claims that the main thing is not treatment, but to recover after this treatment, so that the body has the strength to resist all kinds of diseases and complications.

We, cancer patients, can only live, hope and believe, and do not forget to undergo timely screening for reccurence.