The prognosis of stage IA cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with TNM T1a cervical cancer have excellent prognosis; however, the risk for recurrence remains an issue of concern and management guidelines are based on limited data. Here we performed subgroup analysis of the Surveillance in Cervical Cancer (SCCAN) consortium with the objective of defining the prognosis of T1a cervical cancer patients. METHODS: SCCAN was an international, multicentric, retrospective cohort study of patients with cervical cancer undergoing surgical treatment in tertiary centers. Inclusion criteria included: histologically confirmed cervical cancer treated between 2007 and 2016; TNM T1a; primary surgical management; and at least 1-year of follow-up data availability. Exclusion criteria included treatment with primary chemo-radiation, and missing treatment-related or clinical data. RESULTS: Out of 975 patients included, 554 (57 %) were T1a1 and 421 (43 %) T1a2. The majority had squamous-cell carcinoma (78 %). 79 patients (8.1 %) had lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). 455 patients (47 %) underwent radical hysterectomy/ parametrectomy. Laparoscopic and open surgery was performed in 401 (41 %) and in 361 (37 %) patients, respectively. Adjuvant treatment was administered to 56 patients (5.7 %). Assessment of lymph nodes (LN) was performed in 524 patients (54 %), with LN involvement found in 15 (2.9 %). There were 40 (4.1 %) recurrences, occurring at a median of 26 months (4-106), out of which 33 (82.5 %) occurred in pelvis. Among T1a1 cases, there were 10 recurrences (2.0 %) if LVSI was negative, and 3 recurrences (6.7 %) if LVSI was positive. Among T1a2 cases, there were 23 recurrences (6.7 %) if LVSI was negative, and 4 recurrences (5.1 %) if LVSI was positive. There were 3 recurrences in the LN+ group (recurrence rate 20 %). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of recurrence in T1a cervical cancer was 4.1 % corresponding to the rates seen in patients with FIGO 1B cancer in recently published prospective trials. LN involvement represents a risk factor for disease recurrence. Our results indicate that stage T1a cervical cancer, apart from T1a1 LVSI negative disease, should follow the same principles in the management as that of FIGO stage 1B cancer.

Role of adjuvant therapy in intermediate-risk cervical cancer patients - Subanalyses of the SCCAN study.

OBJECTIVE: The "intermediate-risk" (IR) group of early-stage cervical cancer patients is characterized by negative pelvic lymph nodes and a combination of tumor-related prognostic risk factors such as tumor size ≥2 cm, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), and deep stromal invasion. However, the role of adjuvant treatment in these patients remains controversial. We investigated whether adjuvant (chemo)radiation is associated with a survival benefit after radical surgery in patients with IR cervical cancer. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients with IR cervical cancer (tumor size 2-4 cm plus LVSI OR tumor size >4 cm; N0; no parametrial invasion; clear surgical margins) who underwent primary curative-intent surgery between 2007 and 2016 and were retrospectively registered in the international multicenter Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) study. RESULTS: Of 692 analyzed patients, 274 (39.6%) received no adjuvant treatment (AT-) and 418 (60.4%) received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (AT+). The 5-year disease-free survival (83.2% and 80.3%; PDFS = 0.365) and overall survival (88.7% and 89.0%; POS = 0.281) were not significantly different between the AT- and AT+ groups, respectively. Adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit after adjusting for confounding factors by case-control propensity score matching or in subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥4 cm and <4 cm. In univariable analysis, adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy was not identified as a prognostic factor in any of the subgroups (full cohort: PDFS = 0.365; POS = 0.282). CONCLUSION: Among patients with IR early-stage cervical cancer, radical surgery alone achieved equal disease-free and overall survival rates to those achieved by combining radical surgery with adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy.

Stratification of lymph node metastases as macrometastases, micrometastases, or isolated tumor cells has no clinical implication in patients with cervical cancer: Subgroup analysis of the SCCAN project.

BACKGROUND: In cervical cancer, presence of lymph-node macrometastases (MAC) is a major prognostic factor and an indication for adjuvant treatment. However, since clinical impact of micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor-cells (ITC) remains controversial, we sought to identify a cut-off value for the metastasis size not associated with negative prognosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from 967 cervical cancer patients (T1a1L1-T2b) registered in the SCCAN (Surveillance in Cervical CANcer) database, who underwent primary surgical treatment, including sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy with pathological ultrastaging. The size of SLN metastasis was considered a continuous variable and multiple testing was performed for cut-off values of 0.01-1.0 mm. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between N0 and subgroups of N1 patients defined by cut-off ranges. RESULTS: LN metastases were found in 172 (18%) patients, classified as MAC, MIC, and ITC in 79, 54, and 39 patients, respectively. DFS was shorter in patients with MAC (HR 2.20, P = 0.003) and MIC (HR 2.87, P < 0.001), while not differing between MAC/MIC (P = 0.484). DFS in the ITC subgroup was neither different from N0 (P = 0.127) nor from MIC/MAC subgroups (P = 0.449). Cut-off analysis revealed significantly shorter DFS compared to N0 in all subgroups with metastases ≥0.4 mm (HR 2.311, P = 0.04). The significance of metastases <0.4 mm could not be assessed due to limited statistical power (<80%). We did not identify any cut-off for the size of metastasis with significantly better prognosis than the rest of N1 group. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical cancer patients, the presence of LN metastases ≥0.4 mm was associated with a significant negative impact on DFS and no cut-off value for the size of metastasis with better prognosis than N1 was found. Traditional metastasis stratification based on size has no clinical implication.

Survival associated with extent of radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a subanalysis of the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend tailoring the radicality of hysterectomy according to the known preoperative tumor characteristics in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether increased radicality had an effect on 5-year disease-free survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. The secondary aims were 5-year overall survival and pattern of recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective study from the Surveillance in Cervical CANcer (SCCAN) collaborative cohort. Patients with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IB1 and IIA1 who underwent open type B/C1/C2 radical hysterectomy according to Querleu-Morrow classification between January 2007 and December 2016, who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who had negative lymph nodes and free surgical margins at final histology, were included. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed. Patients were stratified according to pathologic tumor diameter. Propensity score match analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. RESULTS: A total of 1257 patients were included. Of note, 883 patients (70.2%) underwent nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy, and 374 patients (29.8%) underwent non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Baseline differences between the study groups were found for tumor stage and diameter (higher use of non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy for tumors >2 cm or with vaginal involvement; P<.0001). The use of adjuvant therapy in patients undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 27.3% vs 28.6%, respectively (P=.63). Five-year disease-free survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 90.1% (95% confidence interval, 87.9-92.2) vs 93.8% (95% confidence interval, 91.1-96.5), respectively (P=.047). Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was independently associated with better disease-free survival at multivariable analysis performed on the entire cohort (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.81; P=.004). Furthermore, 5-year overall survival in patients undergoing nerve-sparing vs non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was 95.7% (95% confidence interval, 94.1-97.2) vs non-nerve-sparing 96.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.3-98.7), respectively (P=.78). In patients with a tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 94.7% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 96.2% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.22). In patients with tumors between 21 and 40 mm, 5-year disease-free survival was 90.3% in non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy vs 83.1% in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (P=.016) (no significant difference in the rate of adjuvant treatment in this subgroup, P=.47). This was confirmed after propensity match score analysis (balancing the 2 study groups). The pattern of recurrence in the propensity-matched population did not demonstrate any difference (P=.70). CONCLUSION: For tumors ≤20 mm, no survival difference was found with more radical hysterectomy. For tumors between 21 and 40 mm, a more radical hysterectomy was associated with improved 5-year disease-free survival. No difference in the pattern of recurrence according to the extent of radicality was observed. Non-nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy was associated with better 5-year disease-free survival than nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy after propensity score match analysis.

Association of Hospital Surgical Volume With Survival in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Treated With Radical Hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of number of radical hysterectomies performed per year in each center with disease-free survival and overall survival. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients previously included in the Surveillance in Cervical Cancer collaborative studies. Individuals with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB1-IIA1 cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and had negative lymph nodes at final histology were included. Patients were treated at referral centers for gynecologic oncology according to updated national and international guidelines. Optimal cutoffs for surgical volume were identified using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model, with disease-free survival as the outcome and defined as the value that minimizes the P-value of the split in groups in terms of disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was used to create statistically similar cohorts at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2,157 patients were initially included. The two most significant cutoffs for surgical volume were identified at seven and 17 surgical procedures, dividing the entire cohort into low-volume, middle-volume, and high-volume centers. After propensity score matching, 1,238 patients were analyzed-619 (50.0%) in the high-volume group, 523 (42.2%) in the middle-volume group, and 96 (7.8%) in the low-volume group. Patients who underwent surgery in higher-volume institutions had progressively better 5-year disease-free survival than those who underwent surgery in lower-volume centers (92.3% vs 88.9% vs 83.8%, P=.029). No difference was noted in 5-year overall survival (95.9% vs 97.2% vs 95.2%, P=.70). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that FIGO stage greater than IB1, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, grade greater than 1, tumor diameter greater than 20 mm, minimally invasive surgical approach, nonsquamous cell carcinoma histology, and lower-volume centers represented independent risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: Surgical volume of centers represented an independent prognostic factor affecting disease-free survival. Increasing number of radical hysterectomies performed in each center every year was associated with improved disease-free survival.