Rationality of FIGO 2018 IIIC restaging of cervical cancer according to local tumor size: A cohort study

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionFIGO 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 methodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.