The prognostic value of the presence of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases in cervical cancer patients; the influence of the new FIGO classification (stage IIIC).

INTRODUCTION: One of the major changes in the revised (2018) FIGO-staging system is the addition of stage IIIC to the previously used 2009 system. We evaluated the prognostic value of positive pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed by analyzing data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All patients newly diagnosed with stage IB-IVA between 2005 and 2018 were identified. Three-year, 5-year and 15-year overall survival (OS) rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of the included 6082 patients, 1740 patients (29%) had pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases. For patients with FIGO 2009 stage IB-IB1-IIA-IIA1 and stage IB2-IIA2-IIB with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases the OS was significantly different (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009), with a 5-year OS of 77% and 67%, compared with 92% and 74% for women without lymph node metastases. For FIGO 2009 stage IIIA-IIIB-IVA with and without lymph node metastases, survival rates are not significantly different (p = 0.064). For FIGO 2018 stage IIIC the 3y-OS, 5y-OS and 15-year OS are 72%, 65% and 59% respectively. Survival rates of IIIC diagnosed based on imaging (IIICr) are significantly impaired compared to stage IIIC diagnosed based on pathology (IIICp) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with FIGO 2009 stage IB-IIB cervical cancer with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph node metastases have significantly impaired survival compared to patients without metastases. Survival rates of patients with FIGO 2009 stage IIIA-IVA are not affected by lymph node metastases.

Evidence supporting see-and-treat management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies of see-and-treat management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) vary in their inclusion criteria, resulting in a broad range of overtreatment rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine overtreatment rates in see-and-treat management of women referred for colposcopy because of suspected CIN, in order to define circumstances supporting see-and-treat management. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to 12 May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of see-and-treat management in women with a reported cervical smear result, colposcopic impression, and histology result were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We used the inverse variance method for pooling incidences, and a random-effects model was used to account for heterogeneity between studies. Overtreatment was defined as treatment in patients with no CIN or CIN1. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (n = 4611) were included. The overall overtreatment rate in women with a high-grade cervical smear and a high-grade colposcopic impression was 11.6% (95% CI 7.8-15.3%). The overtreatment rate in women with a high-grade cervical smear and low-grade colposcopic impression was 29.3% (95% CI 16.7-41.9%), and in the case of a low-grade smear and high-grade colposcopic impression it was 46.4% (95% CI 15.7-77.1%). In women with a low-grade smear and low-grade colposcopic impression, the overtreatment rate was 72.9% (95% CI 68.1-77.7%). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: The pooled overtreatment rate in women with a high-grade smear and high-grade colposcopic impression is at least comparable with the two-step procedure, which supports the use of see-and-treat management in this subgroup of women. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: See-and-treat management is justified in the case of a high-grade smear and a high-grade colposcopic impression.