Impact of Different Post-operative Treatment Modalities on Long-term Outcomes in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 Stage IIICp Cervical Cancer

Overview

Journal Int J Gynecol Cancer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Oncology

Date 2023 Mar 31

PMID 37001894

Authors

Ashvin Soochit

Chuyao Zhang

Yanling Feng

Xiaolin Luo

He Huang

Jihong Liu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IIICp cervical cancer patients receiving different adjuvant treatment modalities after radical hysterectomy.

Methods: From January 2008 to December 2012, patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy plus retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy with pathologically confirmed positive lymph nodes, and received either radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiation, or sequential chemoradiation, were included in this study. Survival analysis was performed according to different adjuvant treatment modalities and after adjustment using propensity score matching.

Results: A total of 192 stage IIICp cervical cancer patients were eligible. In multivariate analysis, only sequential chemoradiation versus radiotherapy was associated with both overall survival (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94, p=0.035) and disease-free survival (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p<0.001). The 5-year overall survival for radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiation, and sequential chemoradiation was 71.6%, 81.7%, and 81.5%, respectively. No significant difference in overall survival was noted between the three groups (radiotherapy vs concurrent chemoradiation, p=0.15; radiotherapy vs sequential chemoradiation, p=0.09; concurrent chemoradiation vs sequential chemoradiation, p=0.95). However, sequential chemoradiation significantly increased disease-free survival compared with radiotherapy alone (79.2% vs 63.1%, p=0.028). After propensity score matching in the baseline characteristics, both overall survival (88.0% vs 71.6%, p=0.028) and disease-free survival (88.0% vs 63.1%, p=0.021) were improved in the sequential chemoradiation group compared with radiotherapy alone; no significant differences were noted between sequential chemoradiation and concurrent chemoradiation (overall survival 88.0% vs 83.8%, p=0.50; disease-free survival 88.0% vs 75.8%, p=0.28).

Conclusion: In this cohort of FIGO 2018 IIICp cervical cancer patients, post-operative sequential chemoradiation was associated with higher survival compared with radiotherapy alone after propensity matching. Future prospective studies are required to further elucidate the optimal modality in node-positive cervical cancer.

References

Choi C, Lee Y, Kim M, Kim T, Lee J, Nam H . A matched-case comparison to explore the role of consolidation chemotherapy after concurrent chemoradiation in cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 81(5):1252-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.2006. View

Hosaka M, Watari H, Mitamura T, Konno Y, Odagiri T, Kato T . Survival and prognosticators of node-positive cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010; 16(1):33-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-010-0123-0. View

Duenas-Gonzalez A, Zarba J, Patel F, Alcedo J, Beslija S, Casanova L . Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(13):1678-85. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9663. View

Tang J, Tang Y, Yang J, Huang S . Chemoradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced cervical adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 125(2):297-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.033. View

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View

Zhong M, Wang Y, Liang M, Liu H, Zeng S . Consolidation chemotherapy in early-stage cervical cancer patients with lymph node metastasis after radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020; 30(5):602-606. PMC: 7362880. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000690. View

Jhawar S, Hathout L, Elshaikh M, Beriwal S, Small Jr W, Mahmoud O . Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy for Cervical Cancer and Effect of Timing and Duration on Treatment Outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 98(5):1132-1141. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.03.045. View

Kim S, Kim J, Wee C, Lee M, Kim H, Chung H . Survival impact of additional chemotherapy after adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation in patients with early cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy. BMC Cancer. 2021; 21(1):1260. PMC: 8609857. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08940-z. View

. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. View

10.

Mabuchi S, Isohashi F, Okazawa M, Kitada F, Maruoka S, Ogawa K . Chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy involving paclitaxel and carboplatin and in FIGO stage IIIB/IVA cervical cancer patients. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016; 28(1):e15. PMC: 5165064. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e15. View

11.

Creasman W, Kohler M . Is lymph vascular space involvement an independent prognostic factor in early cervical cancer?. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 92(2):525-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.11.020. View

12.

Bhatla N, Berek J, Cuello Fredes M, Denny L, Grenman S, Karunaratne K . Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019; 145(1):129-135. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12749. View

13.

Eifel P, Winter K, Morris M, Levenback C, Grigsby P, Cooper J . Pelvic irradiation with concurrent chemotherapy versus pelvic and para-aortic irradiation for high-risk cervical cancer: an update of radiation therapy oncology group trial (RTOG) 90-01. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(5):872-80. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.197. View

14.

Huang H, Feng Y, Wan T, Zhang Y, Cao X, Huang Y . Effectiveness of Sequential Chemoradiation vs Concurrent Chemoradiation or Radiation Alone in Adjuvant Treatment After Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: The STARS Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021; 7(3):361-369. PMC: 7809615. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7168. View

15.

Kibudde S, Namisango E, Nakaganda A, Atieno M, Bbaale J, Nabwana M . Turnaround time and barriers to treatment of newly diagnosed cancer in Uganda: a mixed-methods longitudinal study. Afr Health Sci. 2022; 22(1):327-337. PMC: 9382503. DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v22i1.40. View

16.

Kasamatsu T, Onda T, Sawada M, Kato T, Ikeda S, Sasajima Y . Radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage I-IIB adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Br J Cancer. 2009; 100(9):1400-5. PMC: 2694432. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605048. View

17.

Yuan C, Wang P, Lai C, Tsu E, Yen M, Ng H . Recurrence and survival analyses of 1,115 cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1999; 47(2):127-32. DOI: 10.1159/000010076. View

18.

Peters 3rd W, Liu P, Barrett 2nd R, STOCK R, Monk B, Berek J . Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(8):1606-13. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606. View

19.

Sevin B, Lu Y, Bloch D, Nadji M, Koechli O, AVERETTE H . Surgically defined prognostic parameters in patients with early cervical carcinoma. A multivariate survival tree analysis. Cancer. 1996; 78(7):1438-46. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19961001)78:7<1438::AID-CNCR10>3.0.CO;2-0. View

20.

Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N, Saito T, Matsuyama T, Akazawa K . Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1992; 69(1):181-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920101)69:1<181::aid-cncr2820690130>3.0.co;2-b. View