Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study
- PMID: 37338046
- PMCID: PMC10378020
- DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14612
Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study
Abstract
Introduction: FIGO 2018 IIIC remains controversial for the heterogeneity of its prognoses. To ensure a better management of cervical cancer patients in Stage IIIC, a revision of the FIGO IIIC version classification is required according to local tumor size.
Material and methods: We retrospectively enrolled cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2018 Stages I-IIIC who had undergone radical surgery or chemoradiotherapy. Based on the tumor factors from the Tumor Node Metastasis staging system, IIIC cases were divided into IIIC-T1, IIIC-T2a, IIIC-T2b, and IIIC-(T3a+T3b). Oncologcial outcomes of all stages were compared.
Results: A total of 63 926 cervical cancer cases were identified, among which 9452 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier pairwise analysis showed that: the oncology outcomes of I and IIA were significantly better than of IIB, IIIA+IIIB, and IIIC; the oncology outcome of IIIC-(T1-T2b) was significantly better than of IIIA+IIIB and IIIC-(T3a+T3b); no significant difference was noted between IIB and IIIC-(T1-T2b), or IIIC-(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB. Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with IIIC-T1, Stages T2a, T2b, IIIA+IIIB and IIIC-(T3a+T3b) were associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. There was no significant difference in the risk of death or recurrence/death between patients with IIIC-(T1-T2b) and IIB. Also, compared with IIB, IIIC-(T3a+T3b) was associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. No significant differences in the risk of death and recurrence/death were noted between IIIC-(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB.
Conclusions: In terms of oncology outcomes of the study, FIGO 2018 Stage IIIC of cervical cancer is unreasonable. Stages IIIC-T1, T2a, and T2b may be integrated as IIC, and it might be unnecessary for T3a/T3b cases to be subdivided by lymph node status.
Keywords: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging (FIGO staging); Stage IIIC; T-staging; cervical cancer; oncology outcome.
© 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.
Figures


Comment in
-
Reviewing FIGO 2018 cervical cancer staging.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Dec;102(12):1757-1758. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14667. Epub 2023 Aug 17. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023. PMID: 37592393 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
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.Front Oncol. 2024 Oct 1;14:1460543. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1460543. eCollection 2024. Front Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39411135 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Discussion on the rationality of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC for cervical cancer with oncological outcomes: a cohort study.Ann Transl Med. 2022 Jan;10(2):122. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-6374. Ann Transl Med. 2022. PMID: 35282078 Free PMC article.
-
Treatment of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer with different local tumor factors.BMC Cancer. 2023 May 9;23(1):421. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-10801-w. BMC Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37161372 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing survival outcomes for cervical cancer based on the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging systems.Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 26;11(1):6988. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86283-2. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 33772044 Free PMC article.
-
Treatment Strategies and Prognostic Factors of 2018 FIGO Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer: A Review.Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2022 Jan-Dec;21:15330338221086403. doi: 10.1177/15330338221086403. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2022. PMID: 35341413 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of oncological outcomes and complication rate between radical hysterectomy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage IIICr cervical cancer without parametrial invasion.BMC Cancer. 2025 Apr 30;25(1):811. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14196-8. BMC Cancer. 2025. PMID: 40307765 Free PMC article.
-
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.Front Oncol. 2024 Oct 1;14:1460543. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1460543. eCollection 2024. Front Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39411135 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Establishment of a Novel Risk Stratification System Integrating Clinical and Pathological Parameters for Prognostication and Clinical Decision-Making in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.Cancer Med. 2024 Nov;13(22):e70394. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70394. Cancer Med. 2024. PMID: 39555813 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy of integrating surgical interventions with chemoradiotherapy in managing stage IIIC cervical cancer.Am J Transl Res. 2025 Jun 15;17(6):4351-4361. doi: 10.62347/GLOU3149. eCollection 2025. Am J Transl Res. 2025. PMID: 40672579 Free PMC article.
-
Re-evaluating prognostic factors for cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis: a Japanese multicenter cohort study based on FIGO 2018.Int J Clin Oncol. 2025 Mar;30(3):584-592. doi: 10.1007/s10147-025-02697-2. Epub 2025 Jan 16. Int J Clin Oncol. 2025. PMID: 39815053
References
-
- Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut AN, 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;240:209‐214. - PubMed