ABSTRACT
Objective@#To assess the efficacy of the FIGO 2018 classification system for nodal-specific classifications for early-stage cervical cancer; specifically, to examine the impact of nodal metastasis on survival and the effect of postoperative treatments, according to histological subtypes. @*Methods@#This society-based retrospective observational study in Japan examined 16,539 women with the 2009 FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent primary surgical treatment from 2004 to 2015. Associations of cause-specific survival (CSS) with nodal metastasis and postoperative adjuvant therapy were examined according to histology type (squamous cell carcinoma [SCC], n=10,315; and non-SCC, n=6,224). @*Results@#The nodal metastasis rate for SCC was higher than that for non-SCC (10.7% vs. 8.3%, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, the impact of nodal metastasis on CSS was greater for non-SCC tumors (adjusted-hazard ratio [HR], 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.40–4.02) than for SCC tumors (adjusted-HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.70–2.84; p<0.001). Propensity score matching analysis showed significantly lower CSS rates for women with pelvic nodal metastasis from non-SCC tumors than from SCC tumors (5-year CSS rate, 75.4% vs. 90.3%, p<0.001). The CSS rates for women with nodal metastasis in SCC histology were similar between the postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy and chemotherapy groups (89.2% vs. 86.1%, p=0.42), whereas those in non-SCC histology who received postoperative chemotherapy improved the CSS (74.1% vs. 67.7%, p=0.043). @*Conclusion@#The node-specific staging system in the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer classification is applicable to both non-SCC tumors and SCC tumors; however, the prognostic significance of nodal metastases and efficacy of postoperative therapies vary according to histology.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology published the first guidelines for the treatment of cervical cancer in 2007. The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of the introduction of the first guideline on clinical trends and outcomes of patients with earlystage cervical cancer who underwent surgery. @*Methods@#This analysis included 9,756 patients who were diagnosed based on the pathological Tumor-Node-Metastasis (pTNM) classification (i.e., pT1b1, pT1b2, pT2b and pN0, pN1, pNX) and received surgery as a primary treatment between 2004 and 2009. Data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed, and clinicopathological trends were assessed.The influence of the introduction of the guideline on survival was determined by using a competing risk model. @*Results@#For surgery cases, the estimated subdistribution hazard ratio (HR) by the competing risk model for the influence of the guideline adjusted for age, year of registration, pT classification, pN classification, histological type, and treatment methods was 1.024 (p=0.864). Following the introduction of the first guideline in 2007, for patients with lymph node metastasis, the use of chemotherapy (CT) as a postsurgical therapy increased, whereas that of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT)/radiotherapy (RT) decreased (p<0.010). For pN1 cases, the estimated subdistribution HR by the competing risk model for the influence of the guideline was 1.094 (p=0.634). There was no significance in the postsurgical therapy between CT and CCRT/RT (p=0.078). @*Conclusions@#Survival of surgical cases was not improved by the introduction of the guidelines. It is necessary to consider more effective postsurgical therapy for high-risk earlystage cervical cancer.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers was revised in 2014. The aim of this study is to clarify whether the revised FIGO2014 staging reflects the prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer by histological type in Japan. @*Methods@#We extracted 9,747 patients who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer since 2004 until 2008 and who could be classified into appropriate stages from the Gynecologic Cancer Registry of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. These cases were analyzed after revision to FIGO2014 based on the pTNM classification. @*Results@#Among stage I, the 5-year overall survival rate (5y-OS) in FIGO2014 was 94.9% in stage IA, 92.3% in stage IC1, 86.1% in IC2, and 84.9% in IC3 with significant differences between stages IA and IC1 (p=0.012), IC1 and IC2 (p<0.001). There was a significant difference between stages IA and IC1 in clear cell and mucinous carcinoma but not in serous and endometrioid carcinoma. Among stage III, the 5y-OS was 75.6% in stage IIIA1, 68.9% in IIIA2, 58.6% in IIIB, and 44.4% in IIIC, with significant differences between stages IIIA2 and IIIB (p=0.009), IIIB and IIIC (p<0.001). Among stage IV, the 5y-OS was 43.1% in stage IVA *and 32.1% in IVB with a significant difference (p=0.002). @*Conclusion@#The results suggest that changes in classification for stage III and stage IV are appropriate, but the subclassification for stage IC might be too detailed. There was a discrepancy of prognosis by histological type between stage IA and IC1.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers was revised in 2014. The aim of this study is to clarify whether the revised FIGO2014 staging reflects the prognosis of patients with ovarian cancer by histological type in Japan. @*Methods@#We extracted 9,747 patients who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer since 2004 until 2008 and who could be classified into appropriate stages from the Gynecologic Cancer Registry of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. These cases were analyzed after revision to FIGO2014 based on the pTNM classification. @*Results@#Among stage I, the 5-year overall survival rate (5y-OS) in FIGO2014 was 94.9% in stage IA, 92.3% in stage IC1, 86.1% in IC2, and 84.9% in IC3 with significant differences between stages IA and IC1 (p=0.012), IC1 and IC2 (p<0.001). There was a significant difference between stages IA and IC1 in clear cell and mucinous carcinoma but not in serous and endometrioid carcinoma. Among stage III, the 5y-OS was 75.6% in stage IIIA1, 68.9% in IIIA2, 58.6% in IIIB, and 44.4% in IIIC, with significant differences between stages IIIA2 and IIIB (p=0.009), IIIB and IIIC (p<0.001). Among stage IV, the 5y-OS was 43.1% in stage IVA *and 32.1% in IVB with a significant difference (p=0.002). @*Conclusion@#The results suggest that changes in classification for stage III and stage IV are appropriate, but the subclassification for stage IC might be too detailed. There was a discrepancy of prognosis by histological type between stage IA and IC1.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) published the first practice guideline for endometrial cancer in 2006. The JSGO guideline evaluation committee assessed the effect of this guideline introduction on clinical practice and patient outcome using data provided by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) cancer registration system. METHODS: Data of patients with endometrial cancer registered between 2000 and 2012 were analyzed, and epidemiological and clinical trends were assessed. The influence of guideline introduction on survival was determined by analyzing data of patients registered between 2004 and 2009 using competing risk model. RESULTS: In total, 65,241 cases of endometrial cancer were registered. Total number of patients registered each year increased about 3 times in the analyzed period, and the proportion of older patients with type II endometrial cancer rapidly increased. The frequency of lymphadenectomy had decreased not only among the low-recurrence risk group but also among the intermediate- or high-recurrence risk group. Adjuvant therapy was integrated into chemotherapy (p<0.001). Overall survival did not significantly differ before and after the guideline introduction (hazard ratio [HR]=0.891; p=0.160). Additional analyses revealed patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy showed better prognosis than those receiving adjuvant radiation therapy when limited to stage I or II (HR= 0.598; p=0.003). CONCLUSION: It was suggested that guideline introduction influenced the management of endometrial cancer at several aspects. Better organized information and continuous evaluation are necessary to understand the causal relationship between the guideline and patient outcome.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Drug Therapy , Endometrial Neoplasms , Gynecology , Japan , Lymph Node Excision , Obstetrics , PrognosisABSTRACT
Cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, have both high morbidity and mortality among the gynecologic malignant tumors in Japan. The present study was conducted using both the population-based cancer registry and the gynecologic cancer registry to elucidate the characteristics of gynecologic malignant tumors in Japan. Based on nationwide estimates from the population-based cancer registry in Japan, the morbidities and mortality of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were obtained and used for analysis. Clinicopathologic factors for cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, including age, clinical stage, postsurgical stage, histological type, therapeutic strategy, and prognosis were retrieved from the gynecologic cancer registry published by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and used for analysis. The morbidities of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were 10,908, 13,606, and 9,384 women in 2012, respectively. The prevalence of endometrial cancer has significantly and consistently been increasing and represents the most common gynecologic malignant tumor in Japan. The mortalities of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancers were 2.1, 1.3, and 3.2 per 100,000 in 2012, respectively. In 2014, 52.2% of cervical cancer patients were classified as stage I, 22.5% as stage II, 10.2% as stage III, and 11.2% as stage IV. In addition, 71.9% of endometrial cancer patients were classified as stage I, 6.0% as stage II, 13.3% as stage III, and 7.5% as stage IV. Finally, 43.2% of ovarian cancer patients were classified as stage I, 9.1% as stage II, 27.6% as stage III, and 7.2% as stage IV. Twelve point five percent of ovarian cancer patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.