OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery (NCS) is more efficient than primary surgical treatment (PST) for improving clinical outcomes in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted a matched-case comparison where 61 patients treated with NCS were matched to 183 treated with PST. We compared intermediate- and high-risk factors, the need of adjuvant radiotherapy, disease recurrence and survivals between NCS and PST. Patients with ≥2 intermediate- or ≥1 high-risk factors received adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation using cisplatin-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: NCS reduced more definitely intermediate- and high-risk factors than PST in stage IIA disease in spite of little difference of them in stage IB disease (large tumor size, 25% vs. 52.4%; deep stromal invasion, 57.1% vs. 82.1%; lymphovascular space invasion, 35.7% vs. 65.5%; parametrial invasion, 17.9% vs. 41.7%; p<0.05). Moreover, ≥2 intermediate-risk factors were less common in NCS than PST despite no difference of the number of high-risk factors between the 2 treatments, which decreased the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage IIA disease who received NCS (46.4% vs. 84.5%, p<0.01). Although there were no differences in progression-free survival and disease recurrence between the 2 treatments, NCS led to poorer overall survival than PST in stage IIA disease with no difference of it in stage IB disease. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy between NCS and PST may be similar in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer. However, NCS can lead to poor prognosis despite the reduction of intermediate-risk factors and the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in FIGO stage IIA disease.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery (NCS) is more efficient than primary surgical treatment (PST) for improving clinical outcomes in FIGO stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer. METHODS: We conducted a matched-case comparison where 61 patients treated with NCS were matched to 183 treated with PST. We compared intermediate- and high-risk factors, the need of adjuvant radiotherapy, disease recurrence and survivals between NCS and PST. Patients with ≥2 intermediate- or ≥1 high-risk factors received adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation using cisplatin-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: NCS reduced more definitely intermediate- and high-risk factors than PST in stage IIA disease in spite of little difference of them in stage IB disease (large tumor size, 25% vs. 52.4%; deep stromal invasion, 57.1% vs. 82.1%; lymphovascular space invasion, 35.7% vs. 65.5%; parametrial invasion, 17.9% vs. 41.7%; p<0.05). Moreover, ≥2 intermediate-risk factors were less common in NCS than PST despite no difference of the number of high-risk factors between the 2 treatments, which decreased the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage IIA disease who received NCS (46.4% vs. 84.5%, p<0.01). Although there were no differences in progression-free survival and disease recurrence between the 2 treatments, NCS led to poorer overall survival than PST in stage IIA disease with no difference of it in stage IB disease. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy between NCS and PST may be similar in FIGO stage IB cervical cancer. However, NCS can lead to poor prognosis despite the reduction of intermediate-risk factors and the need of adjuvant radiotherapy in FIGO stage IIA disease.