Surgical versus clinical staging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages IIB-IVA: oncologic results of a prospective randomized international multicenter (Uterus-11) intergroup study.
cervical cancer
laparoscopes
operative
radiation oncology
surgical procedures
Journal
International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society
ISSN: 1525-1438
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynecol Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9111626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
17
08
2020
revised:
23
10
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
entrez:
9
12
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
2
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Revised staging of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is based on clinical examination, imaging, and potential surgical findings. A known limitation of imaging techniques is an appreciable rate of understaging. In contrast, surgical staging may provide more accurate information on lymph node involvement. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the impact of pre-treatment surgical staging, including removal of bulky lymph nodes, on disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Uterus-11 was a prospective international multicenter study including patients with locally advanced cervical cancer who were randomized 1:1 to surgical staging (experimental arm) or clinical staging (control arm) followed by primary platinum-based chemoradiation. Patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IIB-IVA underwent gynecologic examination and pre-treatment imaging including abdominal computed tomography (CT) and/or abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients had chest imaging (any of the following: X-ray, CT, or PET-CT). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival. An ad hoc analysis was performed after trial completion for cancer-specific survival. Randomization was conducted from February 2009 to August 2013. A total of 255 patients (surgical arm, n=130; clinical arm, n=125) with locally advanced cervical cancer were randomized. Of these, 240 patients were eligible for analysis. The two groups were comparable with respect to patient characteristics. The surgical approach was transperitoneal laparoscopy in most patients (96.6%). Laparoscopic staging led to upstaging in 39 of 120 (33%) patients. After a median follow-up of 90 months (range 1-123) in both arms, there was no difference in disease-free survival between the groups (p=0.084). For patients with FIGO stage IIB, surgical staging is superior to clinical staging with respect to disease-free survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.86, p=0.011). In the post-hoc analysis, surgical staging was associated with better cancer-specific survival (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93, p=0.020). Our study did not show a difference in disease-free survival between surgical and clinical staging in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. There was a significant benefit in disease-free survival for patients with FIGO stage IIB and, in a post-hoc analysis, a cancer-specific survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic staging. The high risk of distant metastases in both arms emphasizes the need for further evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33293284
pii: ijgc-2020-001973
doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001973
pmc: PMC7788482
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1855-1861Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© IGCS and ESGO 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Future Oncol. 2015;11(2):309-22
pubmed: 25591841
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Clin Transl Oncol. 2018 Nov;20(11):1455-1459
pubmed: 29671223
Oncology. 2017;92(4):213-220
pubmed: 28142146
Cancer. 2011 May 1;117(9):1928-34
pubmed: 21509770
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 20;31(24):3026-33
pubmed: 23857967
Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2019 Feb 21;36(2):115-123
pubmed: 31620623
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):536-44
pubmed: 16126259
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Jan;17(1):64-84
pubmed: 30659131
BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):1089-1094
pubmed: 28128517
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Feb 1;94(2):243-53
pubmed: 26853333
J Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(3):171-8
pubmed: 25925292
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):98-101
pubmed: 24231134
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):503.e1-7
pubmed: 25986030
J Transl Med. 2018 Nov 26;16(1):326
pubmed: 30477530
Cancer Sci. 2010 Jun;101(6):1471-9
pubmed: 20298252
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(30):e16421
pubmed: 31348242
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Apr;89(1):160-7
pubmed: 12694671
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 May;236:79-83
pubmed: 30889424
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 May;125(2):312-4
pubmed: 22333995
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Feb;156(2):320-327
pubmed: 31843274
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jan 4;4:27
pubmed: 29318031
Cancer. 2008 May 1;112(9):1954-63
pubmed: 18338811
J Radiat Res. 2014 Jan 1;55(1):139-45
pubmed: 23912599
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jun 1;92(2):260-7
pubmed: 25968823
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 May;28(4):641-655
pubmed: 29688967
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017 May - Jun;24(4):609-616
pubmed: 28161495
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Aug;138(2):299-303
pubmed: 26007204
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Feb 15;31(4):717-23
pubmed: 7860382
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Jan-Feb;21(1):3-8
pubmed: 23911560
Oncologist. 2011;16(7):1021-7
pubmed: 21659610