Comparison of survival outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix after radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma (AC/ASC) of the cervix after radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy. METHODS: Propensity score matching (1:4) was used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients with SCC and AC/ASC in China. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred sixty-six patients were enrolled according to the criteria. The 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group (n = 5251) were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (n = 215). After PSM (1:4), the 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (72.2% vs 56.9%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.895; 67.6% vs 47.8%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.056). In stage I-IIA2 patients, after PSM (1:4), there was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the SCC group (n = 143) and the AC/ASC group (n = 34) (68.5% vs 67.8%, P = 0.175). However, the 5-year DFS in the SCC group was higher than that in the AC/ASC group (71.0% vs 55.7%, P = 0.045; HR = 2.037, P = 0.033). In stage IIB-IV patients, after PSM (1:4), the 5-year OS and DFS in the SCC group (n = 690) were higher than those in the AC/ASC group (n = 173) (70.7% vs 54.3% P < 0.001 vs 1.940%, P < 0.001 vs 45.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For stage I-IIA2, there was no significant difference in 5-year survival time, but patients with AC/ASC were more likely to relapse. In the more advanced IIB-IV stage, the oncological outcome of radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy of cervical AC/ASC was worse than that of SCC.

Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for 2018 FIGO stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer: a large multicenter study.

Background: Nomograms are predictive tools widely used for estimating cancer prognosis. We aimed to develop/validate a nomogram to predict the postsurgical 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) probability for patients with stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer [2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2018)]. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled cervical cancer patients at 47 hospitals with stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 disease from the Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment for Cervical Cancer in China database. All patients were assigned to either the development or validation cohort (75% of patients used for model construction and 25% used for validation). OS and DFS were defined as the clinical endpoints. Clinicopathological variables were analyzed based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model. A nomogram was established and validated internally (with bootstrapping) and externally, and its performance was assessed according to the concordance index (C-index), receiver-operating characteristic curve, and calibration plot. Results: In total, 4,065 patients were enrolled and assigned to the development cohort (n=3,074) or validation cohort (n=991). The OS nomogram was constructed based on age, FIGO stage, stromal invasion, and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). The DFS nomogram was constructed based on the FIGO stage, histological type, stromal invasion, and LVSI. Both nomograms showed greater discrimination than the FIGO 2018 staging system in the development cohort [OS nomogram vs. FIGO 2018: C-index =0.69 vs. 0.61, area under the curve (AUC): 69.8 vs. 60.3; DFS nomogram vs. FIGO 2018: C-index =0.64 vs. 0.57, AUC: 62.6 vs. 56.9], and the same results were observed the definition in the validation cohort. Calibration plots demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and actual probabilities of 5-year OS/DFS in the development and validation cohorts. We stratified the patients into 3 subgroups with differences in OS/DFS. Each risk subgroup presented a distinct prognosis. Conclusions: We successfully developed a robust and powerful model for predicting 5-year OS/DFS in stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2018) for the first time. Internal and external validation showed that the model had great prediction performance and was superior to the currently utilized FIGO staging system.

Comparison of survival outcomes between radio-chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy in patients with stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: long-term oncological outcome analysis in 37 Chinese hospitals.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of radio-chemotherapy (R-CT) and radical hysterectomy with postoperative standard therapy (RH) in stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients. METHODS: Based on the large amount of diagnostic and treatment cervical cancer data in China, a real-world study and 1:1 case-control matching were used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in cervical cancer patients. RESULTS: In this real-world study, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 8949) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 18,152). After applying the inclusion criteria, the OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 582) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 4308). After 1:1 case-control matching, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 535) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 535) (OS: 76.1% vs. 84.6%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.819; DFS: 75.1% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.001, HR = 1.462, respectively). Further stratification showed that for stage IB1 and IIA1 patients, the 5-year OS and DFS in the R-CT group (n = 300) were lower than those in the RH group (n = 300) (OS: 78.9% vs. 87.0%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.160; DFS: 77.0% vs. 84.9%, p < 0.001, HR = 2.053, respectively). In stage IB2 and IIA2 patients, the 5-year OS in the R-CT group (n = 235) was lower than that in the RH group (n = 235) (72.5% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.039; HR = 1.550), but no difference in the 5-year DFS was found between the two groups (72.6% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.151). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that for stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer patients, RH offers better overall survival and disease-free survival outcomes than R-CT, however, due to the inherent biases of retrospective study, it needs to be confirmed by randomized trials. In addition, we need to further understand the quality of life of the two treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: registration number: CHiCTR1800017778; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Port, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/. registration date: August 14, 2018.