Prognostic Performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Cervical Cancer Staging Guidelines
- PMID: 31188324
- PMCID: PMC7641496
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003311
Prognostic Performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Cervical Cancer Staging Guidelines
Abstract
Objective: To examine the prognostic performance of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging schema.
Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to identify women with cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2015. Using clinical and pathologic data, each patient's stage was classified using three staging schemas: American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition, FIGO 2009 and FIGO 2018. The FIGO 2018 revised staging classifies stage IB tumors into three substages based on tumor size (IB1-IB3) and classifies patients with positive lymph nodes (pathologically or clinically detected) as stage IIIC1 (positive pelvic nodes) or IIIC2 (positive para-aortic nodes). Five-year survival rates were estimated for each stage grouping. We sought to determine whether the 2018 FIGO staging system was able to offer improved 5-year survival rate differentiation compared with older staging schemas.
Results: A total of 62,212 women were identified. The classification of stage IB tumors into three substages improved discriminatory ability. Five-year survival in the FIGO 2018 schema was 91.6% (95% CI 90.4-92.6%) for stage IB1 tumors, 83.3% (95% CI 81.8-84.8%) for stage IB2 neoplasms, and 76.1% (95% CI 74.3-77.8%) for IB3 lesions. In contrast, for women with stage III tumors, higher FIGO staging was not consistently associated with worse 5-year survival rates: stage IIIA (40.7%, 95 CI 37.1-44.3%), stage IIIB (41.4%; 95% CI 39.9-42.9%), stage IIIC1 (positive pelvic nodes) was 60.8% (95% CI 58.7-62.8%) and stage IIIC2 37.5% (95% CI 33.3-41.7%).
Conclusion: The FIGO 2018 staging schema provides improved discriminatory ability for women with stage IB tumors; however, classification of all women with positive lymph nodes into a single stage results in a very heterogeneous group of patients with highly variable survival rates.
Conflict of interest statement
Financial Disclosure
Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Matsuo has received an honorarium from Chugai and money paid to him from Springer for a textbook editorial. He has also received meeting expenses paid from OVAL. Dr. Neugut has served as a consultant to Pfizer, Teva, Otsuka, Hospira, and United Biosource Corporation. He is on the scientific advisory board of EHE, Intl. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Figures


Similar articles
-
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 Sep;240:209-214. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.002. Epub 2019 Jul 6. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019. PMID: 31325847
-
Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system.Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026. Epub 2018 Oct 30. Gynecol Oncol. 2019. PMID: 30389105 Free PMC article.
-
Clinicopathological risk factors in the light of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for early cervical cancer with staging IB: A single center retrospective study.Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Apr;99(16):e19714. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019714. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020. PMID: 32311956 Free PMC article.
-
FIGO stage, histology, histologic grade, age and race as prognostic factors in determining survival for cancers of the female gynecological system: an analysis of 1973-87 SEER cases of cancers of the endometrium, cervix, ovary, vulva, and vagina.Semin Surg Oncol. 1994 Jan-Feb;10(1):31-46. doi: 10.1002/ssu.2980100107. Semin Surg Oncol. 1994. PMID: 8115784 Review.
-
Cervical Cancer: 2018 Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System and the Role of Imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 May;214(5):1182-1195. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21819. Epub 2020 Mar 17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020. PMID: 32182097 Review.
Cited by
-
Silva cumulative score and its relationship with prognosis in Endocervical adenocarcinoma.BMC Cancer. 2022 Nov 14;22(1):1172. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10270-7. BMC Cancer. 2022. PMID: 36376880 Free PMC article.
-
Parametrial involvement and decreased survival of women with FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical cancer.J Gynecol Oncol. 2023 Jul;34(4):e46. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e46. Epub 2023 Mar 13. J Gynecol Oncol. 2023. PMID: 36929577 Free PMC article.
-
Emerging Therapeutic Concepts and Latest Diagnostic Advancements Regarding Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Gynecologic Tract.Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Dec 7;57(12):1338. doi: 10.3390/medicina57121338. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021. PMID: 34946283 Free PMC article. Review.
-
MRI-based radiomic signatures for pretreatment prognostication in cervical cancer.Cancer Med. 2023 Oct;12(20):20251-20265. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6526. Epub 2023 Oct 16. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 37840437 Free PMC article.
-
PAX1 hypomethylation as a prognostic biomarker for radioresistance of cervical cancer.Clin Epigenetics. 2023 Aug 2;15(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13148-023-01538-1. Clin Epigenetics. 2023. PMID: 37533109 Free PMC article.
References
-
- FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014;125:97–8. - PubMed
-
- Pecorelli S Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:103–4. - PubMed
-
- Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143(suppl 2):22–36. - PubMed
-
- American College of Surgeons. The National Cancer Database. Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/index.html. Retrieved March 10, 2012.