Implications of the revised cervical cancer FIGO staging system

Neerja Bhatla, Seema Singhal, Ekta Dhamija, Sandeep Mathur, Jayashree Natarajan, Amita Maheshwari, Neerja Bhatla, Seema Singhal, Ekta Dhamija, Sandeep Mathur, Jayashree Natarajan, Amita Maheshwari

Abstract

The 2018 revised International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of cervical cancer has brought about a paradigm shift by offering the option of adding imaging and pathology to clinical staging. This makes it applicable to all types of resource situations across geographies with implications for all stakeholders, including gynaecologists, gynaecologic oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and radiation and medical oncologists. The new staging classification has more granularity, with three sub-stages of stage IB and a new category of stage IIIC for all cases with lymph node (LN) involvement. The major limitations of clinical staging were inaccurate assessment of tumour size and inability to assess pelvic and para-aortic LNs with the limited investigations permitted by FIGO to change the stage. This resulted in understaging of stages IB-III, and overstaging of stage IIIB, which has been largely overcome by incorporating imaging findings. Although any imaging modality can be used, magnetic resonance imaging appears to be the best imaging modality for early-stage disease owing to its better soft-tissue resolution. However, the use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography or ultrasonography are also feasible options, depending on the availability and resources. But wherever pathological evaluation is possible, it supersedes clinical and radiological findings.

Keywords: Cervical cancer; FIGO; implications; oncologists; pathologists; radiologists; revision; staging.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None.

References

    1. Gress DM, Edge SB, Greene FL, Washington MK, Asare EA, Brierley JD, et al. Principles of cancer staging. In: Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Crompton CC, Gershenwald JE, editors. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 3–30.
    1. Bhatla N, Denny L. The revised FIGO staging of cervical cancer (2018) –Implications for the LMICs. Southern Afr J Gynaecol Oncol. 2019;11:3–4.
    1. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105:107–8.
    1. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 2):22–36.
    1. Bhatla N, Berek J, Cuello M, Denny L, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. S020.2 New Revised FIGO staging of cervical cancer (2018). Abstracts of the XXII FIGO World Congress of Gynecology &Obstetrics. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 3):43–991.
    1. Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145:129–35.
    1. Bhatla N, Rajaram S, Maheshwari A. The revised FIGO staging of cervical cancer (2018):Implications for India and the LMICs. Indian J Gynaecol Oncol. 2019;17:92.
    1. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, DiSaia PJ, Keys HM, Larson JE, Fowler WC. Carcinoma of the cervix treated with radiation therapy. I. A multi-variate analysis of prognostic variables in the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer. 1991;67:2776–85.
    1. Wagner A, Pappas L, Ghia A, Gaffney D. Impact of tumor size on survival in cancer of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:S459.
    1. Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A, Chargari C, Leary A, Morice P. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer:A systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e240–53.
    1. Plante M, Gregoire J, Renaud MC, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy:An update. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S105–10.
    1. Póka R, Molnár S, Daragó P, Lukács J, Lampé R, Krasznai Z, et al. Intention-to-treat analysis of radical trachelectomy for early-stage cervical cancer with special reference to oncologic failures:Single-institutional experience in Hungary. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1438–45.
    1. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, Placa F, Milani R, Perego P, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–40.
    1. Berek JS, Matsuo K, Grubbs BH, Gaffney DK, Lee SI, Kilcoyne A, et al. Multidisciplinary perspectives on newly revised 2018 FIGO staging of cancer of the cervix uteri. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30:e40.
    1. Smits RM, Zusterzeel PL, Bekkers RL. Pretreatment retroperitoneal para-aortic lymph node staging in advanced cervical cancer:A review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:973–83.
    1. Hasenburg A, Salama JK, Van TJ, Amosson C, Chiu JK, Kieback DG. Evaluation of patients after extraperitoneal lymph node dissection and subsequent radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84:321–6.
    1. Rizou N, Moris D, Pikoulis E, Dimitrokallis N, Mpaili E, Felekouras E, et al. Minimally invasive lymphadenectomy in uterine cervical cancer:A systematic review. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:335–42.
    1. Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut AN, Akilli H, Öz M, Haberal A, et al. 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? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:209–14.
    1. Yan DD, Tang Q, Chen JH, Tu YQ, Lv XJ. Prognostic value of the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer patients with surgical risk factors. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:5473–80.
    1. Wright JD, Matsuo K, Huang Y, Tergas AI, Hou JY, Khoury-Collado F, et al. Prognostic performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics cervical cancer staging guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:49–57.
    1. de Gregorio A, Widschwendter P, Ebner F, Friedl TW, Huober J, Janni W, et al. Influence of the new FIGO classification for cervical cancer on patient survival:A retrospective analysis of 265 histologically confirmed cases with FIGO stages IA to IIB. Oncology. 2020;98:91–7.
    1. Liu X, Wang J, Hu K, Zhang F, Meng Q, Wang W, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO staging system of cervical cancer for stage III patients with a cohort from China. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:1405–10.
    1. Narayan K, Lin MY, Kondalsamy-Chennakesvan S, Bernshaw D, Maheshwari A, Bhatla N. Redistribution of cervix cancer patients from FIGO 2009 to FIGO 2018 staging following incorporation of medical imaging. Indian J Gynaecol Oncol. 2019;17:93.
    1. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152:87–93.
    1. Salvo G, Odetto D, Pareja R, Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT. Revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging:A review of gaps and questions that remain. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:873–8.
    1. Lagasse LD, Creasman WT, Shingleton HM, Ford JH, Blessing JA. Results and complications of operative staging in cervical cancer:Experience of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Gynecol Oncol. 1980;9:90–8.
    1. Zhang W, Zhang J, Yang J, Xue H, Cao D, Huang H, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:1292–8.
    1. Thomeer MG, Gerestein C, Spronk S, van Doorn HC, van der Ham E, Hunink MG. Clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the pretreatment staging of cervical carcinoma:Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2005–18.
    1. Petsuksiri J, Jaishuen A, Pattaranutaporn P, Chansilpa Y. Advanced imaging applications for locally advanced cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13:1713–8.
    1. Dashottar S, Preeth Pany T, Lohia N. Role of apparent diffusion coefficient as a biomarker in the evaluation of cervical cancer. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2019;29:25–32.
    1. Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, Cheung TH, Metreweli C. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:759–66.
    1. Herrera FG, Prior JO. The role of PET/CT in cervical cancer. Front Oncol. 2013;3:34.
    1. Mirpour S, Mhlanga JC, Logeswaran P, Russo G, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. The role of PET/CT in the management of cervical cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W192–205.
    1. Patel CN, Nazir SA, Khan Z, Gleeson FV, Bradley KM. 18F-FDG PET/CT of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:1225–33.
    1. Epstein E, Testa A, Gaurilcikas A, Di Legge A, Ameye L, Atstupenaite V, et al. Early-stage cervical cancer:Tumor delineation by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound –A European multicenter trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:449–53.
    1. Moloney F, Ryan D, Twomey M, Hewitt M, Barry J. Comparison of MRI and high-resolution transvaginal sonography for the local staging of cervical cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 2016;44:78–84.
    1. Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, Vondrichova H, Calda P, Zikan M, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:766–72.
    1. Choi HJ, Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y. Diagnostic performance of computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer:Meta-analysis. Cancer Sci. 2010;101:1471–9.
    1. Park W, Park YJ, Huh SJ, Kim BG, Bae DS, Lee J, et al. The usefulness of MRI and PET imaging for the detection of parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;35:260–4.
    1. Mohseni S, Shojaiefard A, Khorgami Z, Alinejad S, Ghorbani A, Ghafouri A. Peripheral lymphadenopathy:Approach and diagnostic tools. Iran J Med Sci. 2014;39:158–70.
    1. Olpin J, Chuang L, Berek J, Gaffney D. Imaging and cancer of the cervix in low- and middle-income countries. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2018;25:115–21.
    1. Gungor T, Altinkaya SO, Ozat M, Akbay S, Mollamahmutoglu L. Unusual form of superficial spreading squamous cell carcinoma of cervix involving the endometrium, bilateral tubes and ovaries:A case report with literature review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:323–7.
    1. Salvo G, Odetto D, Saez Perrotta MC, Noll F, Perrotta M, Pareja R, et al. Measurement of tumor size in early cervical cancer:An ever-evolving paradigm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:1215–23.
    1. Bean SM, Kurtycz DF, Colgan TJ. Recent developments in defining microinvasive and early invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2011;15:146–57.
    1. Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Dusek L, Zikán M, Zaal A, Sevcik L, et al. Prognostic significance of low volume sentinel lymph node disease in early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:496–501.
    1. Cibula D, McCluggage WG. Sentinel lymph node (SLN) concept in cervical cancer:Current limitations and unanswered questions. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152:202–7.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit