龙行涛, 周 琦, 陈月梅, et al. The prognostic value of revised 2018 FIGO stage ⅢC in cervical cancer[J]. China Oncology, 2021, 31(8): 725-733. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2021.08.005.
The prognostic value of revised 2018 FIGO stage ⅢC in cervical cancer
背景与目的:国际妇产科联盟(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics,FIGO)2018年子宫颈癌新分期增加了ⅢC期。但是,ⅢC期这类患者存在高度异质性,其预后差异可能较大。探讨子宫颈癌2018年FIGO新分期系统对ⅢC期患者预后的预测价值。方法:采用病例对照研究方法,根据纳入和排除标准,连续收集2011年1月—2014年12月重庆大学附属肿瘤医院妇科肿瘤中心收治的子宫颈癌Ⅲ期患者的临床病历资料,回顾性分析生存状况及影响预后的相关因素。采用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率;单因素生存分析采用log-rank检验;多因素生存分析采用COX比例风险回归模型。结果:纳入研究病例418例,其中ⅢA期42例(10.0%),ⅢB期120例(28.7%),ⅢC1期190例(45.5%),ⅢC2期66例(15.8%)。在4组人口学特征中,年龄差异有统计学意义(P=0.003);其他包括组织学类型、组织分化、肿瘤大小、放射治疗类型、是否巩固化疗差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。生存分析显示,ⅢC1期患者5年生存率为54.1%,高于ⅢB期的40.6%及ⅢA期的43.3%,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.042及P=0.484)。ⅢC2期患者5年生存率仅为23.1%,均显著低于其他组(P0.01)。多因素模型分析显示,ⅢC1期较ⅢA(HR=1.432,95% CI:0.867~2.366,P=0.161)和ⅢB期(HR=1.261
Background and purpose: The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 revised the staging system for cervical cancer with new stage ⅢC. However
patients with stage ⅢC exhibit heterogeneous clinical characteristics
and the prognosis is different. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of 2018 FIGO new stage system for cervical cancer patients in stage ⅢC. Methods: A case-control study was conducted to collect the clinical data of patients with stage Ⅲ cervical cancer treated in Gynecological Oncology Center
Chongqing University Cancer Hospital from January 2011 to December 2014 according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The survival status and prognostic factors were analyzed retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival rate. Log-rank test was used for univariate survival analysis
and Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for multivariate survival analysis. Results: A total of 418 cases were included in the study
in which stage ⅢA had 42 cases (10.0%)
stage ⅢB had 120 cases (28.7%)
stage ⅢC1 had 190 cases (45.5%) and stage ⅢC2 had 66 cases (15.8%). There was significant difference in age among the four groups (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in histological type
histological differentiation
tumor size
radiotherapy type and consolidation chemotherapy (P0.05). Survival analysis showed that the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of stage ⅢC1 disease was 54.1%
higher but not statistically significant compared with stage ⅢB (40.6%
P=0.042) and ⅢA (43.3%
P=0.484). The stage ⅢC2 had a significantly worse OS compared with stage ⅢC1
ⅢA and ⅢB (P0.01)
and 5-year OS rate was 23.1% for ⅢC2. Multivariate analysis showed that the stage ⅢC1 disease did not increase the risk of death compared with stage ⅢA (HR=1.432
95% CI: 0.867-2.366
P=0.161) and ⅢB (HR=1.261
95% CI: 0.871-1.827
P=0.219). The risk of death was nearly 3 times higher in ⅢC2 than in ⅢA (HR=2.958
95% CI:
1.757-4.983
P0.001). The survival of stage ⅢC1 disease differed significantly based on T stage (P0.001). Multivariable analysis showed T stage remained an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with stage ⅢC1 disease
and 5-year OS rate was 72.2% for T
1
54.1% for T
2
and 18.6% for T 3 ( P0.001). The 5-year OS rate of stage ⅢC1 (T
1
) patients was 72.2% with better 5-year OS compared with stage ⅢA (P=0.004) and ⅢB (P0.001). Based on the pathological stage and imaging stage
the 5-year OS rate of stage ⅢC1p (T
1
/T
2a
) was 64.5%
which was significantly higher compared with stage ⅢC1r (T
2b
/T
3
) (34.9%
P0.001). The prognosis of patients with stage ⅢC1p (T
1
/T
2a
) was significantly better than that of patients with stage ⅢB (P0.001). Conclusion: The prognosis of patients with stage ⅢC2 disease has distinct characteristics. However
the stage ⅢC1 is heterogeneous
and its prognostic evaluation should be combined with T stage.