Staging of Cervical Cancer: What has Changed?

被引:0
|
作者
Changede, Pradnya [1 ]
机构
[1] LTMMC & GH, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
来源
关键词
Cancer cervix staging; FIGO classification Cancer cervix; FIGO 2018 staging cancer cervix; Surgical staging cancer cervix; Revised 2024 staging cancer cervix;
D O I
10.1007/s13224-024-02054-9
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
In India, cervical cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related fatalities and the fourth most common malignancy worldwide affecting women. India accounts for 25% of all cervical cancer-related deaths worldwide each year. The main drawbacks of clinical staging were the imprecise estimation of tumor size and the challenge of determining the involvement of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes with the few studies that FIGO allowed to be done for staging of cancer cervix. The use of 2009 staging approach showed that when many cases were operated based only on clinical findings, they subsequently required adjuvant therapy; hence, treatment-related morbidity was negatively impacted by these errors. Changes have been made to the staging of cervical cancer according to the 2018 revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines. Correction to cancer of the cervix staging was published recently in 2024. The horizontal extent (lateral extent) of the disease is not taken into consideration for staging in cases of microinvasive disease. Three subgroups have been identified based on the stratification of tumor size: IB1 <= 2 cm, IB2 > 2- <= 4 cm, and IB3 > 4 cm. Pathology and imaging modalities are added to clinical diagnosis for staging of cancer cervix. The involvement of lymph nodes (LNs) is now classified based on pathology (p) or imaging (r) which specifies that lymph node involvement is diagnosed using pathology (p) or imaging (r). Stage IIIC has been added [IIIC1 (involvement of pelvic nodes) and IIIC2 (involvement of para-aortic nodes)] is assigned to the case in the event of lymph node positive status. Pathological assessment takes precedence over radiological and clinical findings. The involvement of vascular/lymphatic spaces should not change the staging. The lower staging should be assigned when there is doubt about stage. Overall, the revised FIGO staging of cancer cervix (2024) has a number of advantages, including the inclusion of imaging and pathology, tumor size and LN-based categorization. More studies on staging of cancer cervix in different populations using revised staging of cancer cervix will help to prognosticate use of this staging.
引用
收藏
页码:378 / 381
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] March and after: what has changed? What has stayed the same?
    Marat, Erica
    CENTRAL ASIAN SURVEY, 2008, 27 (3-4) : 229 - 240
  • [22] An interim assessment of September 11: What has changed and what has not?
    Jervis, R
    POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 2002, 117 (01) : 37 - 54
  • [23] Staging of transitional cell carcinoma: Has anything changed?
    Kulkarni, J. N.
    Bakshi, G. K.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 24 (01) : 68 - 71
  • [24] Prostate cancer pathology: What has changed in the last 5 years
    Cimadamore, Alessia
    Scarpelli, Marina
    Raspollini, Maria Rosaria
    Doria, Andrea
    Galosi, Andrea Benedetto
    Massari, Francesco
    Di Nunno, Vincenzo
    Cheng, Liang
    Lopez-Beltran, Antonio
    Montironi, Rodolfo
    UROLOGIA JOURNAL, 2020, 87 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [25] Adolescent cancer care: What has changed in Spain in the past decade?
    Garrido Colino, Carmen
    Andion Catalan, Maitane
    Molines Honrubia, Antonio
    Ortega Acosta, Maria Jose
    Garcia Abos, Mirian
    Juan Ribelles, Antonio
    Vagace Valero, Jose Manuel
    ANALES DE PEDIATRIA, 2023, 98 (02): : 129 - 135
  • [26] Lung cancer screening, what has changed after the latest evidence?
    Carlos Trujillo-Reyes, Juan
    Seijo, Luis
    Martinez-Tellez, Elisabeth
    Counago, Felipe
    WORLD JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 12 (07): : 130 - 136
  • [27] The Osmolal Gap: What Has Changed?
    Whittington, JoDell E.
    La'ulu, Sonia L.
    Hunsaker, Joshua J. H.
    Roberts, William L.
    CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2010, 56 (08) : 1353 - 1355
  • [28] In Forty Years, What has Changed ... or Not?
    Bloomquist, Karen L.
    DIALOG-A JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY, 2010, 49 (04): : 340 - 344
  • [29] Pediatric tuberculosis–What has changed?
    Mukherjee S.B.
    Singhal K.K.
    Indian Pediatrics, 2016, 53 (6) : 517 - 518
  • [30] What digital technology has changed
    Kuwahara, S
    A + U-ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM, 1999, (349): : 152 - 157