Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Survival impact of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy after radical hysterectomy in FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical adenocarcinoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We evaluated the survival effect of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy after radical hysterectomy in patients with clinical pelvic node-positive cervical adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Patients with pelvic node-positive cervical adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2000 and 2016 at our institution were identified. Survival was compared between patients who underwent radical hysterectomy alone and those who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy as an adjuvant treatment. Survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model was performed.

Results

We identified 80 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for clinical pelvic node-positive cervical adenocarcinoma; of these, four with pathological pelvic node-negative adenocarcinoma were excluded. Of the 76 patients, 27 underwent radical hysterectomy alone and 49 received radical hysterectomy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy. With a median follow-up of 53 months, the 5-year overall survival rate was 51.0% in patients who underwent radical hysterectomy alone versus 53.0% in patients who received additional concurrent chemoradiotherapy (log-rank p = 0.455).

Conclusion

The addition of concurrent chemoradiotherapy after radical hysterectomy did not significantly improve survival among patients with pelvic node-positive cervical adenocarcinoma. More appropriate treatment strategies are needed to improve the survival outcomes of these patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winer I, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Hassan O et al (2015) The prognostic significance of histologic type in early stage cervical cancer—a multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol 137:474–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vinh-Hung V, Bourgain C, Vlastos G et al (2007) Prognostic value of histopathology and trends in cervical cancer: a SEER population study. BMC Cancer 7:164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S et al (2019) Cervical cancer, version 3. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 17:64–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee JY, Kim YT, Kim S et al (2015) Prognosis of cervical cancer in the era of concurrent chemoradiation from national database in Korea: a comparison between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. PLoS ONE 5:4

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zhou J, Wu SG, Sun JY et al (2017) Comparison of clinical outcomes of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix after definitive radiotherapy: a population-based analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:115–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN et al (2018) Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 143:22–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology (2014) FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 125:97–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Waggoner SE (2003) Cervical cancer. Lancet 361:2217–2225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd et al (2000) Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18:1606–1613

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilbur DC, Mikami Y, Colgan TJ et al (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. IARC Press, Lyon, pp 183–189

    Google Scholar 

  11. Querleu D, Cibula D, Abu-Rustum NR (2017) 2017 Update on the Querleu-Morrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3406–3412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleming ND, Frumovitz M, Schmeler KM et al (2015) Significance of lymph node ratio in defining risk category in node-positive early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 136:48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Cancer Institute (2019) Common toxicity criteria v5.0. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm. Accessed 1 Oct 2019

  14. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS et al (2019) Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol 152:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen YL, Ho CM, Chen CA et al (2011) Impact of various treatment modalities on the outcome of stage IB1-IIA cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 112:135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shimada M, Nishimura R, Nogawa T et al (2013) Comparison of the outcome between cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma patients with adjuvant radiotherapy following radical surgery: SGSG/TGCU Intergroup Surveillance. Mol Clin Oncol 1:780–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baalbergen A, Veenstra Y, Stalpers L (2013) Primary surgery versus primary radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for early adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20:CD006248

    Google Scholar 

  18. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A et al (1997) Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350:535–540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Landoni F, Colombo A, Milani R et al (2017) Randomized study between radical surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of stage IB-IIA cervical cancer: 20-year update. J Gynecol Oncol 28:e34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsuo K, Nusbaum DJ, Machida H et al (2019) Populational trends and outcomes of postoperative radiotherapy for high-risk early-stage cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis: concurrent chemo-radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 222:484

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gupta S, Maheshwari A, Parab P et al (2018) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical surgery versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with stage IB2, IIA, or IIB squamous cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 36:1548–1555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kenter G, Greggi S, Vergote I et al (2019) Results from neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation for stage Ib2-IIb cervical cancer, EORTC 55994. J Clin Oncol 37:5503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsuo K, Shimada M, Yamaguchi S et al (2019) Association of Radical Hysterectomy Surgical Volume and Survival for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. Obstet Gynecol 133:1086–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Seki T, Tanabe H, Nagata C et al (2017) Adjuvant therapy after radical surgery for stage IB-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma with risk factors. Jpn J Clin Oncol 47:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Matsuo K, Shimada M, Aoki Y et al (2017) Comparison of adjuvant therapy for node-positive clinical stage IB-IIB cervical cancer: Systemic chemotherapy versus pelvic irradiation. Int J Cancer 141:1042–1051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Uezono. H and Kinoshita. K for useful discussions. The authors thank ENAGO for editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hyogo Cancer Center, 13-70 Kitaoji-cho, Akashi, Hyogo, 673-8558, Japan

    Kazuhiro Suzuki, Shoji Nagao, Moyu Narita, Hiroshi Nakazawa, Takashi Shibutani, Kasumi Yamamoto, Tomoatsu Jimi, Hiroko Yano, Miho Kitai, Takaya Shiozaki, Kazuko Matsuoka & Satoshi Yamaguchi

Authors
  1. Kazuhiro Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shoji Nagao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moyu Narita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroshi Nakazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Shibutani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kasumi Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tomoatsu Jimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hiroko Yano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Miho Kitai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Takaya Shiozaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kazuko Matsuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Satoshi Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KS designed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. SN contributed to the design of the research, interpretation of the data, and assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. MN, HN, TS, KY, TJ, HY, MK, TS, KM, and SY contributed to data collection and interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shoji Nagao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors reported a conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suzuki, K., Nagao, S., Narita, M. et al. Survival impact of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy after radical hysterectomy in FIGO stage IIIC1 cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 26, 1322–1329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-01904-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-01904-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation