SUCCOR Risk: Design and Validation of a Recurrence Prediction Index for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: SUCCOR Risk: Design and Validation of a Recurrence Prediction Index for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Autorzy:: Manzour N; Department of Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Chiva L; Department of Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. .
Chacón E; Department of Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Martin-Calvo N; Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Boria F; Department of Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.
Minguez JA; Department of Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Alcazar JL; Department of Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Corporate Authors:: SUCCOR Study Group
Źródło:: Annals of surgical oncology [Ann Surg Oncol] 2022 Aug; Vol. 29 (8), pp. 4819-4829. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Apr 16.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Validation Study
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2005- : New York, NY : Springer
Original Publication: New York, NY : Raven Press, c1994-
MeSH Terms:: Neoplasm Recurrence, Local*/diagnosis
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local*/pathology
Neoplasm Staging*
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*/diagnosis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*/pathology
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*/surgery
Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/methods ; Prognosis ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment
References:: Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492 . (PMID: 10.3322/caac.2149230207593)
Bansal N, Herzog TJ, Shaw RE, Burke WM, Deutsch I, Wright JD. Primary therapy for early-stage cervical cancer: radical hysterectomy vs radiation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):485.e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.015 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.015)
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl):22–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12611 . (PMID: 10.1002/ijgo.1261130306584)
Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127(3):404–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.003 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.00329728273)
FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva. Cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;125(2):97–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.003 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.003)
Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9077):535–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02250-2 . (PMID: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02250-29284774)
Landoni F, Maneo A, Cormio G, et al. Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB-IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.6010 . (PMID: 10.1006/gyno.2000.601011136561)
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895–904. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395 . (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMoa180639530380365)
Chiva L, Zanagnolo V, Querleu D, et al. SUCCOR study: an international European cohort observational study comparing minimally invasive surgery versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(9):1269–77. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2020-001506 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-00150632788262)
Chacon E, Manzour N, Zanagnolo V, et al. SUCCOR cone study: conization before radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32(2):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2021-002544 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-00254435039455)
Casarin J, Bogani G, Papadia A, et al. Preoperative conization and risk of recurrence in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(1):117–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.015 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.04.01532320800)
Bizzarri N, Pedone Anchora L, Kucukmetin A, et al. Protective role of conization before radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a propensity-score matching study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(7):3585–94. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09695-4 . (PMID: 10.1245/s10434-021-09695-433620615)
Cibula D, Dostálek L, Jarkovsky J, et al. The annual recurrence risk model for tailored surveillance strategy in patients with cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2021;158:111–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.09.008 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.09.00834666213)
Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1905–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1804923 . (PMID: 10.1056/nejmoa1804923303796136464372)
Cibula D, Planchamp F, Fischerova D, et al. European society of gynaecological oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol cancer. 2020;30(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000878 . (PMID: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-00087831900285)
Rotman M, Sedlis A, Piedmonte MR, et al. A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in Stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(1):169–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.10.019 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.10.01916427212)
Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73(2):177–83. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5387 . (PMID: 10.1006/gyno.1999.538710329031)
Eifel PJ, Jhingran A, Brown J, Levenback C, Thames H. Time course and outcome of central recurrence after radiation therapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynecol cancer. 2006;16(3):1106–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00544.x . (PMID: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00544.x16803493)
Elit L, Fyles AW, Devries MC, Oliver TK, Fung-Kee-Fung M. Follow-up for women after treatment for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(3):528–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.001 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.00119560188)
Estape R, Angioli R. Surgical management of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1999;16(3):236–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2388(199904/05)16:3%3c236::aid-ssu8%3e3.0.co;2-j . (PMID: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2388(199904/05)16:3<236::aid-ssu8>3.0.co;2-j10225302)
Fagundes H, Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Lockett MA. Distant metastases after irradiation alone in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;24(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(92)90671-4 . (PMID: 10.1016/0360-3016(92)90671-41526855)
Friedlander M, Grogan M. Guidelines for the treatment of recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Oncologist. 2002;7(4):342–7. (PMID: 10.1634/theoncologist.2002-0342)
Khanna N, Rauh LA, Lachiewicz MP, Horowitz IR. Margins for cervical and vulvar cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113(3):304–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24108 . (PMID: 10.1002/jso.2410826852901)
Kim Y-J, Lee K-J, Park KR, et al. Prognostic analysis of uterine cervical cancer treated with postoperative radiotherapy: importance of positive or close parametrial resection margin. Radiat Oncol J. 2015;33(2):109–16. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2015.33.2.109 . (PMID: 10.3857/roj.2015.33.2.109261576804493422)
McCann GA, Taege SK, Boutsicaris CE, et al. The impact of close surgical margins after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):44–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.028 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.02823138134)
Niibe Y, Kenjo M, Kazumoto T, et al. Multi-institutional study of radiation therapy for isolated para-aortic lymph node recurrence in uterine cervical carcinoma: 84 subjects of a population of more than 5,000. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66(5):1366–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.1384 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.138417126206)
Piura B, Rabinovich A, Friger M. Recurrent cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: a study of 32 cases. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;29(1):31–6. (PMID: 18386460)
Viswanathan AN, Lee H, Hanson E, Berkowitz RS, Crum CP. Influence of margin status and radiation on recurrence after radical hysterectomy in Stage IB cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(5):1501–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.010 . (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.01016750323)
Contributed Indexing:: Investigator: V Zanagnolo; D Querleu; M Căpîlna; A Fagotti; A Kucukmetin; C Mom; G Chakalova; S Aliyev; M Malzoni; F Narducci; O Arencibia; F Raspagliesi; T Toptas; D Cibula; D Kaidarova; M Meydanli; M Tavares; D Golub; A Perrone; R Poka; D Tsolakidis; G Vujić; M Jedryka; P Zusterzeel; J Beltman; F Goffin; D Haidopoulos; H Haller; R Jach; I Yezhova; I Berlev; M Bernardino; R Bharathan; M Lanner; V Sukhin; JG Feron; R Fruscio; K Kukk; J Ponce; N Abdalla; Ö Akbayir; S Akgöl; E Aksahin; S Aliyev; M Alonso-Espias; I Aluloski; C Andrade; N Badzakov; R Barrachina; G Bogani; EA Bonci; H Bonsang-Kitzis; C Brucker; L Cárdenas; A Casajuana; P Cavalle; J Cea; B Chiofalo; G Cordeiro; P Coronado; M Cuadra; J Díez; TD da Costa; S Domingo; L Dostalek; F Demirkiran; D Erasun; M Fehr; S Fernandez-Gonzalez; S Fidalgo; G Fiol; K Galaal; J García; G Gebauer; F Ghezzi; J Gilabert; N Gomes; E Gonçalves; V Gonzalez; F Grandjean; M Guijarro; F Guyon; J Haesen; G Hernandez-Cortes; S Herrero; I Pete; I Kalogiannidis; E Karaman; A Kavallaris; L Klasa; I Kotsopoulos; S Kovachev; M Leht; A Lekuona; M Luyckx; M Mallmann; G Mancebo; A Mandic; T Marina; V Martin; MB Martín-Salamanca; A Martinez; G Meili; G Mendinhos; L Mereu; M Mitrovic; S Morales; E Moratalla; B Morillas; E Myriokefalitaki; M PakižImre; S Petousis; L Pirtea; N Povolotskaya; S Prader; A Quesada; M Redecha; F Roldan; P Rolland; R Saaron; CP Sarac; JP Scharf; Š Smrkolj; R Sousa; A Stepanyan; V Študent; C Tauste; H Trum; T Turan; M Undurraga; A Uppin; A Vázquez; I Vergote; G Vorgias; I Zapardiel
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20220417 Date Completed: 20220706 Latest Revision: 20220720
Update Code:: 20240105
PubMed Central ID:: PMC9246807
DOI:: 10.1245/s10434-022-11671-5
PMID:: 35430668
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Objective: Based on the SUCCOR study database, our primary objective was to identify the independent clinical pathological variables associated with the risk of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer who underwent a radical hysterectomy. Our secondary goal was to design and validate a risk predictive index (RPI) for classifying patients depending on the risk of recurrence.
Methods: Overall, 1116 women were included from January 2013 to December 2014. We randomly divided our sample into two cohorts: discovery and validation cohorts. The test group was used to identify the independent variables associated with relapse, and with these variables, we designed our RPI. The index was applied to calculate a relapse risk score for each participant in the validation group.
Results: A previous cone biopsy was the most significant independent variable that lowered the rate of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.60). Additionally, patients with a tumor diameter >2 cm on preoperative imaging assessment (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.33-3.5) and operated by the minimally invasive approach (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00-2.57) were more likely to have a recurrence. Based on these findings, patients in the validation cohort were classified according to the RPI of low, medium, or high risk of relapse, with rates of 3.4%, 9.8%, and 21.3% observed in each group, respectively. With a median follow-up of 58 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were 97.2% for the low-risk group, 88.0% for the medium-risk group, and 80.5% for the high-risk group (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Previous conization to radical hysterectomy was the most powerful protective variable of relapse. Our risk predictor index was validated to identify patients at risk of recurrence.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)

Informacja