Abstract
Objective
To compare survival outcomes between primary radical surgery and primary radiation in early cervical cancer.
Methods
Patient information was extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Results database. Patients diagnosed with early cervical cancer of stage T1a, T1b, and T2a (American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th edition) from 1998 to 2015 were included in this study after propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results
Among the 4964 patients included in the study, 1080 patients were identified as having positive lymph nodes (N1), and 3884 patients were identified as having negative lymph nodes (N0). Patients with primary surgery had significantly longer 5-year OS than those with primary radiotherapy in both the N1 group (P<0.001) and N0 group (P<0.001). In the subgroup analysis, similar results were found in patients with positive lymph nodes of stage T1a (100.0% vs. 61.1%), T1b (84.1% vs. 64.3%), and T2a (74.4% vs. 63.8%). In patients with T1b1 and T2a1, primary surgery resulted in longer OS than primary radiation, but not in patients with T1b2 and T2a2. In multivariate analysis, the primary treatment was identified as an independent prognostic factor in both N1 and N0 patients (HRN1=2.522, 95% CI=1.919–3.054, PN1<0.001; HRN0=1.895, 95% CI=1.689–2.126, PN0<0.001).
Conclusion
In early cervical cancer stage T1a, T1b1, and T2a1, primary surgery may result in longer OS than primary radiation for patients with and without lymph node metastasis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018,8(6):394–424
Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, et al. Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol, 2020,6(7):1019–1027
Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, et al. Cervical Cancer, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2019,17(1):64–84
Delgado G. Stage IB squamous cancer of the cervix: the choice of treatment. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 1978,33(3):174–83
Tsai CS, Lai CH, Wang CC, et al. The prognostic factors for patients with early cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol, 1999,75(3):328–333
Yeh SA, Wan Leung S, Wang CJ, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in early stage carcinoma of the uterine cervix: treatment results and prognostic factors. Gynecol Oncol, 1999,72(1):10–15
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2019,145(1):129–135
Vercellino GF, Erdemoglu E, Lichtenberg P, et al. A GCIG international survey: clinical practice patterns of sentinel lymph node biopsies in cervical cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2019,300(1):191–199
Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2017,28(suppl_4): iv72–iv83
Doll K, Donnelly E, Helenowksi I, et al. Treatment of stage IB1 cervix cancer: Comparison of radical hysterectomy and radiation. Gynecol Oncol, 2011,123(2):444
Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Shaw RE, et al. Primary therapy for early-stage cervical cancer: radical hysterectomy vs radiation. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009,201(5):485.e1–9
Hopkins MP, Morley GW. Radical hysterectomy versus radiation therapy for stage IB squamous cell cancer of the cervix. Cancer, 1991,68(2):272–277
Kasuya G, Ogawa K, Iraha S, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer: impact of lymph node and histological type on survival. Anticancer Res, 2013,33(5):2199–2204
Liu X, Wang J, Hu K, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO Staging System of Cervical Cancer for Stage III Patients with a Cohort from China. Cancer Manag Res, 2020,12:1405–1410
Grigsby PW, Massad LS, Mutch DG, et al. FIGO 2018 staging criteria for cervical cancer: Impact on stage migration and survival. Gynecol Oncol, 2020,157(3):639–643
Cibula D, Potter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol, 2018,127(3):404–416
Cibula D, Dusek J, Jarkovsky J, et al. A prospective multicenter trial on sentienl lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage cervial cancer (SENTIX). Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2019,29(1):212–215
Cosin JA, Fowler JM, Chen MD, et al. Pretreatment surgical staging of patients with cervical carcinoma: the case for lymph node debulking. Cancer, 1998,82(11): 2241–2248
Lim S, Cho K, Lee S, et al. Effect of number of retrieved lymph nodes on prognosis in FIGO stage I B–II A cervical cancer patients treated with primary radical surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2017,43(1):211–219
Pieterse QD, Kenter GG, Gaarenstroom KN, et al. The number of pelvic lymph nodes in the quality control and prognosis of radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2007,33(2):216–221
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization or corporation or individual that can inappropriately influence this work.
Author Ze-hua WANG is a member of the Editorial Board for [Current Medical Science]. The paper was handled by the other editors and has undergone rigorous peer review process. Author Ze-hua WANG was not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.
This study was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81602629).
Supplementary data
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Xy., Wen, Jy., Huang, Yh. et al. Primary Treatment for Clinically Early Cervical Cancer with Lymph Node Metastasis: Radical Surgery or Radiation?. CURR MED SCI 43, 551–559 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-023-2722-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-023-2722-9