Stage Migration in Cervical Cancer Using the FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Retrospective Survival Analysis Using a Single-Institution Patient Cohort.
cervical cancer
figo
gynecology
migration
obstetrics
oncology
radiation oncology
stage
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
accepted:
05
11
2021
entrez:
8
12
2021
pubmed:
9
12
2021
medline:
9
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) changed the staging system for cervical cancer in 2018 and formally allowed cross-sectional imaging for staging purposes. Stage IB is now divided into three substages based on tumor size (IB1 < 2 cm, IB2 2-4 cm and IB3 > 4 cm). The presence of lymph nodes in the pelvis or para-aortic region will upstage the patient to stage IIIC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent of stage migration using the FIGO 2018 staging system for cervical cancer and validate the new staging system by assessing the survival outcomes. Methods An Institutional Review Board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective analysis was performed on 158 patients from the cervical cancer database at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, USA. Patients had been treated between January 2010 and December 2018, and they were all staged according to the FIGO 2009 staging system previously. We collected data regarding tumor size, lymph node presence, and extent of metastatic disease in the pretreatment CT, positron emission tomography (PET), or MRI scans and restaged the patients using the FIGO 2018 system. The extent of stage migration was evaluated using the new staging system. We analyzed the three-year overall survival (OS) using both FIGO 2009 and 2018 staging systems for validation purposes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed using SPSS version 24. Results Fifty-nine percent of the patients were upstaged when they were restaged using the FIGO 2018 staging system. In the current 2018 staging system, Stage IB3 accounted for 4%, and Stage IIIC accounted for 48% of the patient cohort, while other stages accounted for the rest. The median overall survival of the entire cohort was 20.5 months. There was a change in the survival curves using FIGO 2018 stages compared to those of FIGO 2009. There was a numerical improvement in three-year OS in stages IB and III among the two staging systems; however, it was not statistically significant. Interestingly, the three-year overall survival of Stage IIIC patients was better when compared to Stages III A& B combined (61% vs. 25%, p=0.017). Conclusion The increased availability of cross-sectional imaging across the world has led to recent changes in the FIGO staging system for cervical cancer, which allowed imaging in staging. We identified a significant stage migration in our patient cohort with the FIGO 2018 staging system, but no difference in the three-year overall survival was observed. Local tumor extent may be a worse prognostic indicator than nodal metastasis among stage III patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34877225
doi: 10.7759/cureus.19289
pmc: PMC8645292
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e19289Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Vengaloor Thomas et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 1980 Feb;9(1):90-8
pubmed: 7353805
Gynecol Oncol. 1989 Dec;35(3):314-20
pubmed: 2599466
Cancer. 1991 Jun 1;67(11):2776-85
pubmed: 2025841
Pathologe. 2019 Nov;40(6):629-635
pubmed: 31612260
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(16):e19714
pubmed: 32311956
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 Jun 13;11:5473-5480
pubmed: 31354353
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Feb 25;12:1405-1410
pubmed: 32161492
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Mar;148(3):609-621
pubmed: 29666026
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-6
pubmed: 30241155
Lancet Oncol. 2012 May;13(5):e212-20
pubmed: 22554549
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Sep;240:209-214
pubmed: 31325847
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;143 Suppl 2:22-36
pubmed: 30306584
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 20;31(24):3026-33
pubmed: 23857967
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jul 02;12(7):
pubmed: 32630799
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;134(1):49-57
pubmed: 31188324
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):87-93
pubmed: 30389105
Klin Onkol. 2019 Spring;32(3):224-231
pubmed: 31216857
Gynecol Oncol. 1984 Sep;19(1):8-16
pubmed: 6469092
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jun;157(3):639-643
pubmed: 32248993
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;145(1):129-135
pubmed: 30656645