Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinico-pathological characteristics of patients with stage IB1–IB2 (FIGO 2018) uterine cervical cancer: a nationwide study in Japan

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

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this retrospective analysis is to reveal clinicopathological findings and clinical outcome of patients with stage IB1/IB2 (FIGO 2018) uterine cervical cancer.

Methods

Based on the database of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group, 2194 patients with stage IB1/IB2 (FIGO 2018), who underwent radical hysterectomy between 1/1/2004–12/31/2008, were identified as eligible for this retrospective study.

Results

Patients with squamous cell carcinoma had significantly frequent lympho-vascular space invasion than those with non-squamous cell carcinoma in both stage IB1 and IB2 (stage IB1; 29.1% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.0001, stage IB2; 50.5% vs. 39.7%, p = 0.0009). Among 1262 patients with stage IB1, 61.2% (772/1262) were low-risk group, 29.4% (371/1262) were intermediate-risk group (single risk: 23.3%, double risks: 6.1%). Of 932 patients with stage IB2, 32.1% (299/932) were low-risk group, 59.1% (551/932) were intermediate-risk group (single intermediate-risk: 31.0%, double intermediate-risk: 28.1%). Disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate of stage IB1 patients were significantly better than those with stage IB2 (5-year DFS; 94.7% vs. 88.6%, p < 0.001, 5-yrs OS; 98.5% vs. 95.1%, p < 0.001). Stage IB1 Patients with double intermediate-risk showed significantly worse survival than those with single intermediate-risk (5-yrs DFS: 96.1% vs. 84.6%, p < 0.001, 5-yrs OS: 98.9% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.029). Multivariate analysis revealed that double intermediate-risk was the independent prognostic factor in stage IB1, but non-squamous cell carcinoma and intermediate-risk in stage IB2.

Conclusion

Non-squamous cell carcinoma and intermediate-risk decreased survival in patients with stage IB2, whereas double intermediate-risk was a negative impact on survival in stage IB1.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L et al (2020) Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8(2):e191–e203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yaegashi N (2020) Gynecologic cancer comittee report in 2018. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn 72:800–856

    Google Scholar 

  3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Cervical Cancer version 1.2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical_blocks.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2021

  4. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB et al (1999) Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340(15):1154–1161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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(5):1339–1348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB et al (1999) Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340(15):1144–1153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebina Y, Mikami M, Nagase S et al (2019) Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines 2017 for the treatment of uterine cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 24(1):1–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN et al (2018) Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 143(Suppl 2):22–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS et al (2019) Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol 152(1):87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Gregorio A, Widschwendter P, Ebner F et al (2020) Influence of the new FIGO classification for cervical cancer on patient survival: a retrospective analysis of 265 histologically confirmed cases with FIGO stages IA to IIB. Oncology 98(2):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yan DD, Tang Q, Tu YQ et al (2019) A comprehensive analysis of the factors of positive pelvic lymph nodes on survival of cervical cancer patients with 2018 FIGO stage IIIC1p. Cancer Manag Res 11:4223–4230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Oncology FCOG (2014) FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 125(2):97–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L et al (2018) Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. NEngl J Med 379(20):1905–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kato T, Takashima A, Kasamatsu T et al (2015) Clinical tumor diameter and prognosis of patients with FIGO stage IB1 cervical cancer (JCOG0806-A). Gynecol Oncol 137(1):34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R et al (2018) Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. NEngl J Med 379(20):1895–1904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Galic V, Herzog TJ, Lewin SN et al (2012) Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125(2):287–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(2):292–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(5):464–467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(4):780–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ishii K, Hosaka N, Toki T et al (1998) A new view of the so-called adenoma malignum of the uterine cervix. Virchows Arch 432(4):315–322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mikami Y, Kiyokawa T, Hata S et al (2004) Gastrointestinal immunophenotype in adenocarcinomas of the uterine cervix and related glandular lesions: a possible link between lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia/pyloric gland metaplasia and “adenoma malignum.” Mod Pathol 17(8):962–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kojima A, Mikami Y, Sudo T et al (2007) Gastric morphology and immunophenotype predict poor outcome in mucinous adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Am J Surg Pathol 31(5):664–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kurman RJ, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and World Health Organization (2014) WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs, 4th edn. World Health Organization classification of tumours. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mikami Y (2020) Gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the cervix and its precursors—historical overview. Histopathology 76(1):102–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kusanagi Y, Kojima A, Mikami Y et al (2010) Absence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in endocervical adenocarcinoma with gastric morphology and phenotype. Am J Pathol 177(5):2169–2175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Houghton O, Jamison J, Wilson R et al (2010) p16 Immunoreactivity in unusual types of cervical adenocarcinoma does not reflect human papillomavirus infection. Histopathology 57(3):342–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Park KJ, Kiyokawa T, Soslow RA et al (2011) Unusual endocervical adenocarcinomas: an immunohistochemical analysis with molecular detection of human papillomavirus. Am J Surg Pathol 35(5):633–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Karamurzin YS, Kiyokawa T, Parkash V et al (2015) Gastric-type endocervical adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumor with unusual metastatic patterns and poor prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 39(11):1449–1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kojima A, Shimada M, Mikami Y et al (2018) Chemoresistance of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a study of the sankai gynecology study group. Int J Gynecol Cancer 28(1):99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nishio S, Mikami Y, Tokunaga H et al (2019) Analysis of gastric-type mucinous carcinoma of the uterine cervix—an aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis: a multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol 153(1):13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(6):1086–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Holl K, Nowakowski AM, Powell N et al (2015) Human papillomavirus prevalence and type-distribution in cervical glandular neoplasias: results from a European multinational epidemiological study. Int J Cancer 137(12):2858–2868

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all JGOG institution participated in this study and JGOG Cervical Cancer Committee members for management of this study

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1, Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan

    Keita Tsuji, Muneaki Shimada, Hideki Tokunaga & Nobuo Yaegashi

  2. Department of Information Science, Center for Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iwate Medical University, 1-1-1, Idaidori, Yahaba-machi, Shiwa-gun, Iwate, 028-3694, Japan

    Fumiaki Takahashi

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Sugao 2-16-1, Miyamae ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan

    Imari Deura

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

    Satoshi Yamaguchi

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Miyagi, Japan

    Toru Nakanishi

  6. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, IRD520, Los Angeles, CA, 9033, USA

    Koji Matsuo

  7. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, IRD520, Los Angeles, CA, 9033, USA

    Koji Matsuo

  8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University, 143, Shimokasuya, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan

    Mikio Mikami

Authors
  1. Keita Tsuji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muneaki Shimada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fumiaki Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hideki Tokunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Imari Deura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Satoshi Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toru Nakanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Koji Matsuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nobuo Yaegashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mikio Mikami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muneaki Shimada.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

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

Tsuji, K., Shimada, M., Takahashi, F. et al. Clinico-pathological characteristics of patients with stage IB1–IB2 (FIGO 2018) uterine cervical cancer: a nationwide study in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol 26, 1541–1552 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-01938-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-01938-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation