We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

We describe the updated Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of cervical cancer, version 5.1. The KSGO announced the fifth version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer in March 2024. The selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on data available up to December 2022. Between 2023 and 2024, substantial findings from large-scale clinical trials and new advancements in cervical cancer research remarkably emerged. Therefore, based on the existing version 5.0, we updated the guidelines with newly accumulated clinical data and added 4 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of cervical cancer. For each question, recommendation was formulated with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

Objective: To evaluate C2 muscle preservation effect and the radiological and clinical outcomes after C2 recapping laminoplasty. Methods: Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent C2 recapping laminoplasty around C1–2 level were enrolled. To evaluate muscle preservation effect, the authors conducted a morphological measurement of extensor muscles between the operated and nonoperated side. Two surgeons measured the cross-sectional area (CSA) of obliquus capitis inferior (OCI) and semispinalis cervicis (SSC) muscle before and after surgery to determine atrophy rates (ARs). Additionally, we examined range of motion (ROM), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), neck visual analogue scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score to assess potential changes in alignment and consequent clinical outcomes following posterior cervical surgery. Results: We measured the CSA of OCI and SSC before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Based on these measurements, the AR of the nonoperated SSC was 0.1% ± 8.5%, the AR of the operated OCI was 2.0% ± 7.2%, and the AR of the nonoperated OCI was -0.7% ± 5.1% at the 12 months after surgery. However, the AR of the operated side’s SSC was 11.2% ± 12.5%, which is a relatively higher value than other measurements. Despite the atrophic change of SSC on the operated side, there were no prominent changes observed in SVA, C0–2 ROM, and C2–7 ROM between preoperative and 12 months postoperative measurements, which were 11.8 ± 10.9 mm, 16.3° ± 5.9°, and 48.7° ± 7.7° preoperatively, and 14.1 ± 11.6 mm, 16.1° ± 7.2°, and 44.0° ± 10.3° at 12 months postoperative, respectively. Improvement was also noted in VAS, NDI, and JOA scores after surgery with JOA recovery rate of 77.3% ± 29.6%. Conclusion C2 recapping laminoplasty could be a useful tool for addressing pathologies around the upper cervical spine, potentially mitigating muscle atrophy and reducing postoperative neck pain, while maintaining sagittal alignment and ROM.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.