The Prognostic Significance of Lymph Node Status and Local Tumor Factors in Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jmhs.202505315

Author(s)

Wenyan Zhang, Zhongzhu Tang*

Affiliation(s)

College of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Medicine, Tongde Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Cervical cancer (CC) remains a significant global health challenge, posing a significant threat to women’s lives and well-being. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is the primary pathway for the spread of cancer in CC and serves as a crucial prognostic factor, as well as a key consideration in treatment decisions. In 2018, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) updated its staging system to provide a more detailed classification of early-stage disease and to refine lymph node staging criteria. A notable change was the reclassification of all lymph node metastases into stage IIIC, which is further divided into stage IIIC1 (pelvic lymph node metastasis) and stage IIIC2 (para-aortic lymph node metastasis). However, the current staging system relies solely on the anatomical location of metastatic lymph nodes and does not consider other important factors such as the status of the lymph nodes or characteristics of the primary tumor. This limitation may reduce the staging system’s prognostic accuracy and its ability to effectively guide treatment. This study aims to explore how various lymph node status parameters and primary tumor characteristics influence prognosis in stage IIIC cervical cancer. Specifically, the research will focus on factors such as primary tumor size, the number and size of metastatic lymph nodes, the lymph node ratio, and the log odds of positive lymph nodes to better understand their prognostic significance.

Keywords

FIGO Staging;Cervical Cancer Stage IIIC; Lymph Nodes; Prognosis

References

[1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R L, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. [2] Buskwofie A, David-West G, Clare C A. A Review of Cervical Cancer: Incidence and Disparities[J]. J Natl Med Assoc, 2020, 112(2): 229-232. [3] Saleh M, Virarkar M, Javadi S, et al. Cervical Cancer: 2018 Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System and the Role of Imaging[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020, 214(5): 1182-1195. [4] Salvo G, Odetto D, Pareja R, et al. Revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging: A review of gaps and questions that remain[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(6): 873-878. [5] Abu-Rustum N R, Yashar C M, Arend R, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Cervical Cancer, Version 1.2024[J]. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2023, 21(12): 1224-1233. [6] Wang Y, Lo T T, Wang L, et al. Long-Term Efficacy and Toxicity of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Bulky Cervical Cancer[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2023, 20(2). [7] Zhu Y, Shen B, Pei X, et al. CT, MRI, and PET imaging features in cervical cancer staging and lymph node metastasis[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 13(9): 10536-10544. [8] Olthof E P, Bergink-Voorthuis B J, Wenzel H H B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI, CT, and [(18)F]FDG-PET-CT in detecting lymph node metastases in clinically early-stage cervical cancer - a nationwide Dutch cohort study[J]. Insights Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 36. [9] Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum R S, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 152(1): 87-93. [10] Wright J D, Matsuo K, Huang Y, et al. Prognostic Performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Cervical Cancer Staging Guidelines[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 134(1): 49-57. [11] Zhang Y, Wang C, Zhao Z, et al. Survival outcomes of 2018 FIGO stage IIIC versus stages IIIA and IIIB in cervical cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2024, 165(3): 959-968. [12] Zong L, Zhang Q, Kong Y, et al. The tumor-stroma ratio is an independent predictor of survival in patients with 2018 FIGO stage IIIC squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix following primary radical surgery[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 156(3): 676-681. [13] Shin W, Ham T Y, Park Y R, et al. Comparing survival outcomes for cervical cancer based on the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging systems[J]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1): 6988. [14] Liu X, Wang W, Hu K, et al. A Risk Stratification for Patients with Cervical Cancer in Stage IIIC1 of the 2018 FIGO Staging System[J]. Sci Rep, 2020, 10(1): 362. [15] Long X, He M, Yang L, et al. Validation of the 2018 FIGO Staging System for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients With Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer[J]. Clin Med Insights Oncol, 2023, 17: 11795549221146652. [16] Han L, Chen Y, Zheng A, et al. Stage migration and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer at Stage IIIC according to the 2018 FIGO staging system: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Front Oncol, 2024, 14: 1460543. [17] Yuan Y, You J, Li X, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy after radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy for pelvic lymph node-positive patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: a propensity score matching analysis[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2022, 32(1): 21-27. [18] Mileshkin L R, Moore K N, Barnes E H, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer versus chemoradiotherapy alone (OUTBACK): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2023, 24(5): 468-482. [19] Yong J, Ding B, Dong Y, et al. Impact of examined lymph node number on lymph node status and prognosis in FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based study[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 994105. [20] Jiang S, Jiang P, Jiang T, et al. Effect of Number of Retrieved Lymph Nodes on Prognosis in FIGO Stage IA1-IIA2 Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Primary Radical Surgery[J]. Clin Med Insights Oncol, 2022, 16: 11795549221127161. [21] Wang R, Tao X, Wu X, et al. Number of Removed Pelvic Lymph Nodes as a Prognostic Marker in FIGO Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer with Negative Lymph Nodes[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2020, 27(4): 946-952. [22] Ditto A, Martinelli F, Lo Vullo S, et al. The role of lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer patients: the significance of the number and the status of lymph nodes removed in 526 cases treated in a single institution[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013, 20(12): 3948-3954. [23] Wang J, Lu Y, Li F, et al. Preserving circumflex iliac lymph nodes to reduce the incidence of lower limb lymphedema following lymphadenectomy in cervical and endometrial cancers: A prospective randomized controlled trial[J]. PLoS One, 2024, 19(12): e0311144. [24] Chen X, Li J, Zeng Q, et al. Construction of a nomogram for personalized prediction of lower limb lymphedema risk after cervical cancer surgery[J]. BMC Womens Health, 2024, 24(1): 593. [25] Guo Q, Zhu J, Wu Y, et al. Comparison of different lymph node staging systems in patients with node-positive cervical squamous cell carcinoma following radical surgery[J]. J Cancer, 2020, 11(24): 7339-7347. [26] Guo Q, Zhu J, Wu Y, et al. Validation of the prognostic value of various lymph node staging systems for cervical squamous cell carcinoma following radical surgery: a single-center analysis of 3,732 patients[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2020, 8(7): 485. [27] Kwon J, Eom K Y, Kim Y S, et al. The Prognostic Impact of the Number of Metastatic Lymph Nodes and a New Prognostic Scoring System for Recurrence in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer with High Risk Factors: A Multicenter Cohort Study (KROG 15-04)[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 50(3): 964-974. [28] Chen Y, Zhang L, Tian J, et al. Significance of the absolute number and ratio of metastatic lymph nodes in predicting postoperative survival for the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IA2 to IIA cervical cancer[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2013, 23(1): 157-163. [29] Widschwendter P, Polasik A, Janni W, et al. Lymph Node Ratio Can Better Predict Prognosis than Absolute Number of Positive Lymph Nodes in Operable Cervical Carcinoma[J]. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43(3): 87-95. [30] Aslan K, Meydanli M M, Oz M, et al. The prognostic value of lymph node ratio in stage IIIC cervical cancer patients triaged to primary treatment by radical hysterectomy with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 31(1): e1. [31] Ye Y, Lian R, Li Z, et al. Predictive value of number of metastatic lymph nodes and lymph node ratio for prognosis of patients with FIGO 2018 stage IIICp cervical cancer: a multi-center retrospective study[J]. BMC Cancer, 2024, 24(1): 1005. [32] Cui H, Huang Y, Wen W, et al. Prognostic value of lymph node ratio in cervical cancer: A meta-analysis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2022, 101(42): e30745. [33] Kim S I, Kim T H, Lee M, et al. Lymph Node Ratio Is a Strong Prognostic Factor in Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Undergoing Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2021, 62(3): 231-239. [34] Kwon J, Eom K Y, Kim I A, et al. Prognostic Value of Log Odds of Positive Lymph Nodes after Radical Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Treatment in High-Risk Cervical Cancer[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2016, 48(2): 632-640. [35] Wang C, Yang C, Wang W, et al. A Prognostic Nomogram for Cervical Cancer after Surgery from SEER Database[J]. J Cancer, 2018, 9(21): 3923-3928. [36] Ye Y, Li Z, Kang S, et al. Treatment of FIGO 2018 stage IIIC cervical cancer with different local tumor factors[J]. BMC Cancer, 2023, 23(1): 421. [37] Maeda M, Mabuchi S, Sakata M, et al. Significance of tumor size and number of positive nodes in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IIIC1 cervical cancer[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2024, 54(2): 146-152.