Analysis of prognostic factors for patients with bulky squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical hysterectomy
- 464 Downloads
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is not yet widely recommended for the treatment of stage I/II cervical cancer. However, it may be possible to achieve a favorable outcome by selecting appropriate patients. In the present study, prognostic factors were retrospectively investigated to obtain data for devising individualized NAC.
Patients and methods
The subjects were 33 patients with bulky stage Ib2–IIb squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the uterine cervix who gave consent and were scheduled to undergo radical hysterectomy. The patients intravenously received irinotecan 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day course, and two courses were performed in principle. The potential prognostic factors investigated were age, performance status (PS), clinical stage, lymph node metastasis and tumor size before NAC, SCC antigen value, anti-tumor response, histological effect of NAC, lymph node metastasis in resected specimens, and postoperative adjuvant therapy after NAC. The impacts of these factors on overall survival (OS) were calculated with the Cox regression model.
According to the univariate analysis, lymph node metastasis before NAC, SCC antigen value after NAC, anti-tumor response, and histological effect of NAC significantly influenced OS. These factors were tested in a multivariate model, and significant prognostic factors were lymph node metastasis before NAC (hazard ratio 0.116, P = 0.027) and anti-tumor response (hazard ratio 0.025, P = 0.003).
The presence or absence of lymph node metastasis by computed tomography imaging was the only significant prognostic factor identified during the pre-NAC period.
KeywordsPrognostic analysis Cervical cancer Bulky tumor Squamous cell carcinoma Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN et al (1999) Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB–IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17:1339–1348PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.NCCN (2006) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Cervical Cancer-V2. National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkGoogle Scholar
- 10.Sugiyama T, Nishida T, Kataoka A et al (1996) Combination of irinotecan hydrochloride (CPT-11) and cisplatin as a new regimen for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Jpn 48:827–834Google Scholar
- 11.Takeuchi S, Dobashi K, Fujimoto S et al (1991) A late phase II study of CPT-11 on uterine cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. Research Groups of CPT-11 in Gynecologic Cancers. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 18:1681–1689Google Scholar
- 15.Shoji T, Takatori E, Omi H, et al. (2012) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy using platinum-based regimens for stage Ib2–II squamous cell carcinoma and non-squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. In: Li X (ed) Squamous cell carcinoma. Croatia, pp 79–92Google Scholar
- 17.Tattersall MH, Lorvidhaya V, Vootiprux V et al (1995) Randomized trial of epirubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation in locally advanced cervical cancer. Cervical Cancer Study Group of the Asian Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association. J Clin Oncol 13:444–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Katsumata N, Yoshikawa H, Kobayashi H et al (2013) Phase III randomised controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical surgery vs radical surgery alone for stages IB2, IIA2, and IIB cervical cancer: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG 0102). Br J Cancer 108:1957–1963CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Yamaguchi S, Nishimura R, Yaegashi N et al (2012) Phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with irinotecan hydrochloride and nedaplatin followed by radical hysterectomy for bulky stage Ib2 to IIb, cervical squamous cell carcinoma: Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study (JGOG 1065). Oncol Rep 28:487–493PubMedGoogle Scholar