Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of the prognosis between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer

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

Abstract

Objective

To explore differences in prognosis between adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and to explore feasibility of ovarian preservation in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer (CC).

Materials and methods

Medical records of 810 patients (682 SCC + 128 AC) with stage IB–IIA CC were reviewed. Clinical and pathological characters of the two groups were compared using the chi-squared test. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used in univariate analysis of prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors was conducted by the Cox hazards regression model.

Results

The incidence of LVSI (lymphovascular space invasion) and poor cell differentiation in SCC patients was higher than that in AC patients (23.90% vs. 8.59%, P < 0.05; and 54.25% vs. 28.91%, P < 0.05). Results of univariate analysis showed that cell differentiation, clinical stage, lymph node metastasis (LNM), ovarian metastasis (OM), parametrial involvement (PI), LVSI, depth of stromal invasion, and tumor size were related to the prognosis of patients with stage IB–IIA CC (P < 0.05). Results of multivariate analysis showed that cell differentiation, clinical stage, and LNM were independent prognostic factors for patients with stage IB–IIA CC. There was no difference in 5-year survival rate between SCC patients and AC patients (87.3% vs. 82.4%; P > 0.05). In AC patients, there was no difference in the 5-year survival rate between patients with ovarian retention and patients with bilateral ovariectomy (75% vs. 86.6%; P > 0.05).

Conclusions

In stage IB–IIA CC, there is no difference in prognosis between AC and SCC. The ovaries of stage IB–IIA1 AC patients under age 45 might be preserved.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davy ML, Dodd TJ, Luke CG et al (2003) Cervical cancer: effect of glandular cell type on prognosis, treatment, and survival. Obstet Gynecol 101:38–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eifel PJ, Burke TW, Morris M et al (1995) Adenocarcinoma as an independent risk factor for disease recurrence in patients with stage IB cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 59:38–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Irie T, Kigawa J, Minagawa Y et al (2000) Prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of IB–IIB adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix in patients who have had radical hysterectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 26:464–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shimada M, Kigawa J, Nishimura R et al (2006) Ovarian metastasis in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 101:234–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noh JM, Park W, Kim YS et al (2014) Comparison of clinical outcomes of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma in uterine cervical cancer patients receiving surgical resection followed by radiotherapy: a multicenter retrospective study (KROG 13–10). Gynecol Oncol 132:618–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee YY, Choi CH, Kim TJ et al (2011) A comparison of pure adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy in stage IB–IIA. Gynecol Oncol 120:439–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakanishi T, Ishikawa H, Suzuki Y et al (2000) A comparison of prognoses of pathologic stage IB adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 79:289–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fregnani JH, Soares FA, Novik PR et al (2008) Comparison of biological behavior between early-stage adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 136:215–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ayhan A, Al RA, Baykal C et al (2004) A comparison of prognoses of FIGO stage IB adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:279–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mabuchi S, Okazawa M, Matsuo K et al (2012) Impact of histological subtype on survival of patients with surgically treated stage IA2–IIB cervical cancer: adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 127:114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Look KY, Brunetto VL, Clarke-Pearson DL et al (1996) An analysis of cell type in patients with surgically staged stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 63:304–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Farley JH, Hickey KW, Carlson JW et al (2003) Adenosquamous histology predicts a poor outcome for patients with advanced-stage, but not early-stage, cervical carcinoma. Cancer (Phila) 97:2196–2202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gien LT, Beauchemin MC, Thomas G (2010) Adenocarcinoma: a unique cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 116:140–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grigsby PW, Perez CA, Kuske RR et al (1988) Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: lack of evidence for a poor prognosis. Radiother Oncol 12:289–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Shingleton HM, Bell MC, Fremgen A et al (1995) Is there really a difference in survival of women with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the cervix? Cancer (Phila) 76:1948–1955

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kilgore LC, Soong SJ, Gore H et al (1998) Analysis of prognostic features in adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 31:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alfsen GC, Kristensen GB, Skovlund E et al (2001) Histologic subtype has minor importance for overall survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a population-based study of prognostic factors in 505 patients with nonsquamous cell carcinomas of the cervix. Cancer (Phila) 92:2471–2483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee KBM, Lee JM, Park CY et al (2006) What is the difference between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix? A matched case–control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:1569–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen RJ, Lin YH, Chen CA et al (1999) Influence of histologic type and age on survival rates for invasive cervical carcinoma in Taiwan. Gynecol Oncol 73:184–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hopkins MP, Morley GW (1991) A comparison of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 77:912–917

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vandenbroucke L, Robert AL, Lavoué V et al (2013) Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: particularities in diagnosis and treatment. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 42:207–216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Katanyoo K, Sanguanrungsirikul S, Manusirivithaya S (2012) Comparison of treatment outcomes between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125:292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Galic V, Herzog TJ, Lewin SN et al (2012) Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125:287–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berek JS, Hacker NS, Fu YS et al (1985) Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: histologic variables associated with lymph node metastasis and survival. Obstet Gynecol 65:46–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kornovski Y, Ismail E (2015) Surgical staging and lymph node status in patients with invasive cervical cancer. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 54:17–21 (in Bulgarian)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Quinn MA, Benedet JL, Odicino F et al (2006) Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 95:S43–S103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M et al (2006) Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol 7(10):821–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E et al (2009) Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol 113(5):1027–1037

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Orshan SA, Furniss KK, Forst C et al (2001) The lived experience of premature ovarian failure. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 30(2):202–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nakanishi T, Wakai K, Ishikawa H et al (2001) A comparison of ovarian metastasis between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 82(3):504–509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sutton GP, Bundy BN, Delgado G et al (1992) Ovarian metastases in stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:50–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Webb GA (1975) The role of ovarian conservation in the treatment of carcinoma of the cervix with radical surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 122(4):476–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tabata M, Ichinoe K, Sakuragi N et al (1987) Incidence of ovarian metastasis in patients with cancer of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 28(3):255–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiao XB, Hu J, Zhu LR (2016) The safety of ovarian preservation in early-stage adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26:1510–1514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

1. NSFC (Natural Science Foundation of China): 81372809, 2. National Clinical Research Center for Gynecological Oncology: 2015BAL13B05

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, 107 Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan, 250012, People’s Republic of China

    Xiuzhen Xie, Kun Song, Baoxia Cui, Jie Jiang, Xingsheng Yang & Beihua Kong

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 1 Jingba Road, Jinan, 250001, People’s Republic of China

    Xiuzhen Xie

Authors
  1. Xiuzhen Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Baoxia Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jie Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xingsheng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Beihua Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xingsheng Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No author has any conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, X., Song, K., Cui, B. et al. A comparison of the prognosis between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 23, 522–531 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1225-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1225-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation