Article Data

  • Views 666
  • Dowloads 132

Original Research

Open Access

Non-squamous histology but not adjuvant therapy affects survival in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk following radical hysterectomy

  • Ying-Wen Wang1
  • Hao Lin1
  • Hung-Chun Fu1
  • Chan-Chao Chang Chien1
  • Yu-Che Ou2
  • Pei-Hang Lee3
  • Chao-Cheng Huang3
  • Chen-Hsuan Wu1,4,*,

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 833 Kaohsiung, Taiwan

2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chia-Yi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 613 Chiayi County, Taiwan

3Department of Anatomical Pathology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, 833 Kaohsiung, Taiwan

4Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, Chang Gung University, 333 Taoyuan, Taiwan

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo4206175 Vol.42,Issue 6,December 2021 pp.1205-1212

Submitted: 25 February 2021 Accepted: 22 March 2021

Published: 15 December 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Chen-Hsuan Wu E-mail: chenhsuan5@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective: Radiotherapy is usually recommended following radical hysterectomy (RH) in early-stage cervical cancer with intermediate risk. However, adjuvant radiotherapy only decreases recurrence but not overall survival. This study aimed to compare different adjuvant modalities’s efficacy and to identify prognostic factors among these patients. Methods: A single-center retrospective study was conducted between 2001 and 2015 on FIGO stage IB–IIA cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk following RH. 97 patients were enrolled for analysis. The patients underwent either RH and chemotherapy (n = 24), RH and radiotherapy (n = 21), or RH and close surveillance (n = 52). Prognostic factors that affected disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cox regression was used for univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: The median follow-up period was 117.7 months. There was no statistical difference between 5-year DFS and OS among patients receiving different adjuvant treatments, but patients with non-squamous histology had a lower 5-year DFS (p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis demonstrated no factors but only non-squamous histology significantly predicted DFS (HR = 3.565, 95% CI 1.334–9.531). Conclusions: Non-squamous histology, but not different adjuvant treatment, affects DFS in patients with stage IB–IIA cervical cancer with intermediate pathological risk following RH.

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Intermediate risk; Adjuvant treatment


Cite and Share

Ying-Wen Wang,Hao Lin,Hung-Chun Fu,Chan-Chao Chang Chien, Yu-Che Ou,Pei-Hang Lee,Chao-Cheng Huang,Chen-Hsuan Wu. Non-squamous histology but not adjuvant therapy affects survival in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk following radical hysterectomy. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2021. 42(6);1205-1212.

References

[1] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 394–424.

[2] Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. Cervical cancer screening registry system annual report 2017. 2019. Available at: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?n odeid=1322&pid=10318 (Accessed: 9 January 2020).

[3] Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare. Cancer Registry Annual Report 2016. 2018. Available at: https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=269&pi d=10227 (Accessed: 9 January 2020).

[4] National Health Research Institute. Taiwan Cooperative Oncol- ogy Group. Clinical Practice Guideline of Gynaecologic Oncology. 2007. Available at: http://www.nhri.org.tw/NHRI_ADM/userfil es/file/tcog/100gogpg.pdf (Accessed: 9 January 2020).

[5] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guideline for cervical cancer (Version 5. 2019). 2019. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf (Accessed: 9 January 2020).

[6] Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radi- cal surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2000; 18: 1606–1613.

[7] Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no fur- ther therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic Oncology. 1999; 73: 177–183.

[8] Rotman M, Sedlis A, Piedmonte MR, Bundy B, Lentz SS, Muder- spach LI, et al. A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in Stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study. Inter- national Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2006; 65: 169–176.

[9] Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, Malfetano JH, Hannigan EV, Fowler WC, et al. Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB–IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest On- cology Group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1999; 17: 1339–1348.

[10] John M, Flam M, Caplan R, Rotman M, Quivey J, Steinfeld A, et al. Final results of a phase II chemoradiation protocol for locally advanced cervical cancer: RTOG 85-15. Gynecologic Oncology. 1996; 61: 221–226.

[11] Kredentser DC. Etoposide (VP-16), ifosfamide/mesna, and cis- platin chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecologic Oncology. 1991; 43: 145–148.

[12] Chang TC, Lai CH, Hong JH, Hsueh S, Huang KG, Chou HH, et al. Randomized trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin, vincristine, bleomycin, and radical hysterectomy versus radiation therapy for bulky stage IB and IIA cervical cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2000; 18: 1740–1747.

[13] Ahamad A, D’Souza W, Salehpour M, Iyer R, Tucker SL, Jhingran A, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy after hysterectomy: comparison with conventional treatment and sensitivity of the normal-tissue-sparing effect to margin size. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2005; 62: 1117–1124.

[14] Landoni F, Colombo A, Milani R, Placa F, Zanagnolo V, Mangioni C. Randomized study between radical surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of stage IB–IIA cervical cancer: 20-year update. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2017; 28: e34.

[15] Nakamura K, Kitahara Y, Satoh T, Takei Y, Takano M, Nagao S, et al. Analysis of the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on outcomes and complications after radical hysterectomy in FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with intermediate risk factors (GOTIC Study). World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016; 14: 173.

[16] Sagi-Dain L, Abol-Fol S, Lavie O, Sagi S, Ben Arie A, Segev Y. Cervical cancer with intermediate risk factors: is there a role for adjuvant radiotherapy? A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2019; 84: 606–615.

[17] Shingleton HM, Bell MC, Fremgen A, Chmiel JS, Russell AH, Jones WB, et al. Is there really a difference in survival of women with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosqua- mous cell carcinoma of the cervix? Cancer. 1995; 76: 1948–1955.

[18] Look KY, Brunetto VL, Clarke-Pearson DL, Averette HE, Major FJ, Alvarez RD, et al. An analysis of cell type in patients with sur- gically staged stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic Oncology. 1996; 63: 304–311.

[19] Grisaru D, Covens A, Chapman B, Shaw P, Colgan T, Murphy J, et al. Does histology influence prognosis in patients with early-stage cervical carcinoma? Cancer. 2001; 92: 2999–3004.

[20] Ryu SY, Kim MH, Nam BH, Lee TS, Song ES, Park CY, et al. Intermediate-risk grouping of cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group study. British Journal of Cancer. 2014; 110: 278–285.

[21] Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR, Fischerova D, Pather S, Lavigne K, Slama J, et al. Surgical treatment of “intermediate risk” lymph node negative cervical cancer patients without adjuvant radiotherapy-A retrospective cohort study and review of the literature. Gyneco- logic Oncology. 2018; 151: 438–443.

[22] Yahata H, Sonoda K, Inoue S, Yasutake N, Kodama K, Yagi H, et al. Is adjuvant therapy necessary for patients with intermediate-risk cervical cancer after open radical hysterectomy? Oncology. 2020; 98: 853–858.

[23] Akilli H, Tohma YA, Bulut AN, Karakas LA, Haberal AN, Kuscu UE, et al. Comparison of no adjuvant treatment and radiotherapy in early‐stage cervical carcinoma with intermediate risk factors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2020; 149: 298– 302.

[24] Hosaka M, Watari H, Takeda M, Moriwaki M, Hara Y, Todo Y, et al. Treatment of cervical cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy after radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2008; 34: 552–556.

[25] Matsuo K, Shimada M, Yokota H, Satoh T, Katabuchi H, Kodama S, et al. Effectiveness of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy for intermediate-risk stage IB cervical cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 106866–106875.

[26] Okazawa-Sakai M, Yokoyama T, Fujimoto E, Okame S, Shiroyama Y, Yokoyama T, et al. Long-term outcomes of postoperative tax- ane/platinum chemotherapy for early stage cervical cancer: a retrospective study. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018; 23: 715–725.

[27] Lee KB, Shim SH, Lee JM. Comparison between adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy after radical surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2018; 29: e62.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top