» Articles » PMID: 31325847

Is the Revised 2018 FIGO Staging System for Cervical Cancer More Prognostic Than the 2009 FIGO Staging System for Women Previously Staged As IB Disease?

Overview
Date 2019 Jul 21
PMID 31325847
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the revised FIGO staging system with that of the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease.

Methods: Institutional cervical cancer databases of two high-volume gynecologic cancer centers in Ankara, Turkey, were retrospectively analyzed. Only women with 2009 FIGO stage IB1 or IB2 disease who underwent primary surgery were included. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier plots, and the log-rank test was used for survival comparisons. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Data from 425 women were analyzed. The 2009 FIGO stage IB2 (n = 131) disease was associated with a nearly three-fold increased risk of mortality when compared to the 2009 FIGO stage IB1 (n = 294) disease (HR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.69-4.37; p < 0.001). Stage migration was observed in 372 (87.5%) patients, according to the revised FIGO staging system, leading to no significant difference in five-year overall survival rates between stage IB1 (n=53) and IB2 (n=127) disease (95.2% vs. 89.3%, respectively; p = 0.23),or between stage IB2 (n=127) and IB3 (n=95) disease (89.3% vs. 84.2%, respectively; p = 0.12). Similarly, there was no significant difference in five-year overall survival rates between stage IIIC1 (n=114) and IIIC2 (n=36) disease (79.0% vs. 67.2%, respectively; p = 0.34).

Conclusion: When compared to the 2009 FIGO staging system, the revised staging system has more sub-stages, which leads to fewer patients in each sub-stage, resulting in diminished statistical power.

Citing Articles

Re-evaluating prognostic factors for cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis: a Japanese multicenter cohort study based on FIGO 2018.

Hamada K, Yamanoi K, Hayashi N, Kotani Y, Matsumoto H, Horikawa N Int J Clin Oncol. 2025; 30(3):584-592.

PMID: 39815053 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-025-02697-2.


Stage migration and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer at Stage IIIC according to the 2018 FIGO staging system: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Han L, Chen Y, Zheng A, Tan X, Chen H Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1460543.

PMID: 39411135 PMC: 11473289. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1460543.


Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study.

Duan H, Li H, Kang S, Zhao H, Chen B, Wang L Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023; 102(8):1045-1052.

PMID: 37338046 PMC: 10378020. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14612.


Critical analysis of the FIGO 2018 cervical cancer staging.

Soares L, Junior J, de Souza R, de Oliveira M J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2022; 23(4):325-326.

PMID: 35781539 PMC: 9743344. DOI: 10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2022.2022-1-10.


Implications of the revised cervical cancer FIGO staging system.

Bhatla N, Singhal S, Dhamija E, Mathur S, Natarajan J, Maheshwari A Indian J Med Res. 2022; 154(2):273-283.

PMID: 35295012 PMC: 9131753. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_4225_20.