OBJECTIVE: Stage IB–IIA cervical carcinoma can be equally cured either by radical surgery or radiotherapy (RT). Albeit such policies show the same efficacy, they carry a different morbidity. This is an update after 20 years of a previously published randomized trial of RT vs. surgery in the treatment of stage IB–IIA cervical cancers to assess long-term survival and morbidity and the different pattern of relapse between the 2 modalities. METHODS: Between September 1986 and December 1991, women referred for a newly diagnosed stage IB and IIA cervical carcinoma were randomized to radical surgery or RT. The primary outcome measures were long-term survival and complications rate. The secondary outcome was recurrence of the disease. RESULTS: Three-hundred forty-three eligible women were randomized: 172 to radical surgery and 171 to external RT. Minimum follow-up was 19 years. Thirty-three patients (10%) died of intercurrent disease (31 cases) or fatal complications (2 cases). Twenty-year overall survival is 72% and 77% in the 2 treatment groups (p=0.280), respectively. As a whole, 94 recurrences (28%) were observed. Median time to relapse was 13.5 (surgery group) and 11.5 months (radiotherapy group) (p=0.100), respectively. Multivariate analysis confirms that risk factors for survival are histotype (p=0.020), tumor diameter (p=0.008), and lymph node status (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study seem to suggest that there is no treatment of choice for early stage cervical carcinoma in terms of survival. Long term follow-up confirms that the best treatment for the individual patient should take into account clinical factors such as menopausal status, comorbidities, histological type, and tumor diameter.
Comorbidity ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Multivariate Analysis ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Radiotherapy* ; Recurrence ; Risk Factors ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*

Objective: Genetic variations in the gene encoding zinc finger protein 804A gene (ZNF804A) have been associated with major depression and bipolar disorder. In this work we focused on the potential influence of ZNF804A variations on the risk of developing specific sub-phenotypes as well as the individual response to available treatments. Methods: We used two samples of different ethnic origin: a Korean sample, composed by 242 patients diagnosed with major depression and 132 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder and 326 healthy controls; an Italian sample composed 151 major depression subjects, 189 bipolar disorder subjects and 38 outpatients diagnosed for a primary anxiety disorder. Results: Our analyses reported an association of rs1344706 with psychotic phenotype in the cross-diagnostic pooled sample (geno p = 4.15 × 10−4, allelic p = 1.06 × 10−4). In the cross-diagnosis Italian sample but not in the Korean one, rs7597593 was involved with depressive symptoms improvement after treatment (geno p = 0.025, allelic p = 0.007). Conclusion The present study evidenced the role of ZNF804A alterations in symptoms improvement after treatment. Both manic and depressive symptoms seem to be modulated by ZNF804A, though the latter was observed in the bipolar pooled sample only. The role of this factor is likely related to synaptic development and maintenance; however, further analyses will be needed to better understand the molecular mechanics involved with ZNF804A.