Author:
Zang Lele,Chen Qin,Lin An,Chen Jian,Zhang Xiaozhen,Fang Yi,Wang Min
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Uterine cervical carcinoma is a severe health threat worldwide, especially in China. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has revised the staging system, emphasizing the strength of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We aimed to investigate long-term prognostic factors for FIGO 2018 stage II–IIIC2r uterine cervical squamous cell carcinoma following definitive radiotherapy and establish a prognostic model using MRI-derived tumor volume.
Methods
Patients were restaged according to the FIGO 2018 staging system and randomly grouped into training and validation cohorts (7:3 ratio). Optimal cutoff values of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) and tumor volume derived from MRI were generated for the training cohort. A nomogram was constructed based on overall survival (OS) predictors, which were selected using univariate and multivariate analyses. The performance of the nomogram was validated and compared with the FIGO 2018 staging system. Risk stratification cutoff points were generated, and survival curves of low-risk and high-risk groups were compared.
Results
We enrolled 396 patients (training set, 277; validation set, 119). The SCC-Ag and MRI-derived tumor volume cutoff values were 11.5 ng/mL and 28.85 cm3, respectively. A nomogram was established based on significant prognostic factors, including SCC-Ag, poor differentiation, tumor volume, chemotherapy, and FIGO 2018 stage. Decision curve analysis indicated that the net benefits of our model were higher. The high-risk group had significantly shorter OS than the low-risk group in both the training (p < 0.0001) and validation sets (p = 0.00055).
Conclusions
Our nomogram predicted long-term outcomes of patients with FIGO 2018 stage II–IIIC2r uterine cervical squamous cell carcinoma. This tool can assist gynecologic oncologists and patients in treatment planning and prognosis.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference59 articles.
1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in, et al. a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;8(2020):e191–203.
2. NCCN. The NCCN cervical cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology (Version 1.2022). 2021. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed Oct 2021.
3. Bae HS, Kim YJ, Lim MC, Seo SS, Park SY, Kang S, et al. Predictors of radiation field failure after definitive chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:737–42.
4. Nanthamongkolkul K, Hanprasertpong J. Predictive factors of pelvic lymph node metastasis in early-stage cervical cancer. Oncol Res Treat. 2018;41:194–8.
5. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 2):22–36.