Comparison of global treatment guidelines for locally advanced cervical cancer to optimize best care practices: A systematic and scoping review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for cervical cancer differ between countries and world regions. Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is associated with poorer outcomes than early-stage disease. Country-specific variations in diagnostic and treatment recommendations might contribute to differences in LACC outcomes among countries. OBJECTIVE: We compared international and country-specific guidelines for LACC diagnostic imaging and treatment recommendations. METHODS: A systematic literature review and targeted search were used to identify cervical cancer treatment guidelines published between January 1999-August 2021. Guidelines were identified via literature databases, health technology assessment databases, disease-specific websites, and health organization websites. The targeted search included guidelines from countries in regions known to have high cervical cancer prevalence or mortality. Non-English guidelines were translated by native speakers or online translation services. RESULTS: Forty-six guidelines from 31 countries, regions, and international organizations were compared (41/46 using staging criteria, 27 of which used 2009 FIGO). Most guidelines recommended imaging tests for diagnosis and staging. Chest X-ray, intravenous pyelogram, CT, and MRI were commonly recommended for diagnosis and staging while MRI and PET-CT were recommended for the assessment of lymph node status and distant metastases, with a preference for PET-CT over MRI. There was global consensus for cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation as primary treatment for stages IIB to IVA, with few exceptions. Treatment recommendations for stages IB2 to IIA2 varied. Most guidelines agreed on adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation after radical hysterectomy when there is a high recurrence risk, and adjuvant radiotherapy when there is an intermediate recurrence risk. Recommendations for other adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies varied among the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among treatment guidelines by LACC stage might be influenced by staging criteria used, resource availability, and prevention program effectiveness. Addressing these areas may unify guidelines and improve global outcomes. Review and update of guidelines will be important as novel LACC therapies become available.