OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for cervical cancer still remains controversial. NACT was evaluated to establish selection criteria. METHODS: A matched-case comparison was designed for the NACT group (n=707) and primary surgery treatment (PST; n=707) group to investigate short-term responses and high/intermediate risk factors (HRFs/IRFs). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were stratified by NACT response, HRFs/IRFs, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and tumour size, respectively. RESULTS: The clinical and pathological response rates were 79.3% and 14.9% in the NACT group. In comparison to the PST group, IRFs but not HRFs were significantly decreased (P<0.05), and the 5-year DFS rate was significantly improved in the NACT group (88.4% versus 83.1%, P=0.021). Moreover, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were favourably increased in the clinical responders in comparison to the PST group and the clinical non-responders (P<0.05). Compared to those of clinical non-responders, the 5-year DFS and OS rates of clinical responders, with or without HRFs, were also significantly increased (P<0.01). In stage IB2, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were significantly increased, whereas operation duration declined in the NACT group (P<0.05). For patients with stage IB tumours of 2-5 cm, the 5-year DFS and OS rates of clinical responders were significantly improved (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: NACT is a suitable option for patients with cervical cancer, especially for NACT responders and patients with stage IB, which provides a new concept of fertility preservation for young patients.
OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for cervical cancer still remains controversial. NACT was evaluated to establish selection criteria. METHODS: A matched-case comparison was designed for the NACT group (n=707) and primary surgery treatment (PST; n=707) group to investigate short-term responses and high/intermediate risk factors (HRFs/IRFs). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were stratified by NACT response, HRFs/IRFs, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and tumour size, respectively. RESULTS: The clinical and pathological response rates were 79.3% and 14.9% in the NACT group. In comparison to the PST group, IRFs but not HRFs were significantly decreased (P<0.05), and the 5-year DFS rate was significantly improved in the NACT group (88.4% versus 83.1%, P=0.021). Moreover, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were favourably increased in the clinical responders in comparison to the PST group and the clinical non-responders (P<0.05). Compared to those of clinical non-responders, the 5-year DFS and OS rates of clinical responders, with or without HRFs, were also significantly increased (P<0.01). In stage IB2, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were significantly increased, whereas operation duration declined in the NACT group (P<0.05). For patients with stage IB tumours of 2-5 cm, the 5-year DFS and OS rates of clinical responders were significantly improved (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:NACT is a suitable option for patients with cervical cancer, especially for NACT responders and patients with stage IB, which provides a new concept of fertility preservation for young patients.