Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease?

dc.contributor.authorAyhan, Ali
dc.contributor.authorAslan, Koray
dc.contributor.authorBulut, Ayca Nazli
dc.contributor.authorAkilli, Huseyin
dc.contributor.authorOz, Murat
dc.contributor.authorHaberal, Ali
dc.contributor.authorMeydanli, Mehmet Mutlu
dc.contributor.orcID0000-0002-7495-5470en_US
dc.contributor.pubmedID31325847en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-14T12:07:57Z
dc.date.available2020-12-14T12:07:57Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to compare the prognostic value of the revised FIGO staging system with that of the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease. Methods: Institutional cervical cancer databases of two high-volume gynecologic cancer centers in Ankara, Turkey, were retrospectively analyzed. Only women with 2009 FIGO stage IB1 or 1B2 disease who underwent primary surgery were included. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier plots, and the log-rank test was used for survival comparisons. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Data from 425 women were analyzed. The 2009 FIGO stage IB2 (n = 131) disease was associated with a nearly three-fold increased risk of mortality when compared to the 2009 FIGO stage IB1 (n = 294) disease (HR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.69-4.37; p < 0.001). Stage migration was observed in 372 (87.5%) patients, according to the revised FIGO staging system, leading to no significant difference in five-year overall survival rates between stage IB1 (n=53) and IB2 (n=127) disease (95.2% vs. 89.3%, respectively; p = 0.23),or between stage IB2 (n=127) and IB3 (n=95) disease (89.3% vs. 84.2%, respectively; p = 0.12). Similarly, there was no significant difference in five-year overall survival rates between stage IIIC1 (n=114) and IIIC2 (n=36) disease (79.0% vs. 67.2%, respectively; p = 0.34). Conclusion: When compared to the 2009 FIGO staging system, the revised staging system has more substages, which leads to fewer patients in each sub-stage, resulting in diminished statistical power. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage214en_US
dc.identifier.issn0301-2115en_US
dc.identifier.startpage209en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/5028
dc.identifier.volume240en_US
dc.identifier.wos000486106700037en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.002en_US
dc.relation.journalEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCervical canceren_US
dc.subjectFIGOen_US
dc.subjectInternational Federation of gynecology and obstetricsen_US
dc.subjectStagingen_US
dc.subjectValidationen_US
dc.subject2018en_US
dc.titleIs the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as IB disease?en_US
dc.typearticleen_US

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: