OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for survival of patients with Stage IIA1 and IIA2 cervical cancer (Cx Ca). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A study cohort of 51 patients with Stage IIA Cx Ca was retrospectively collected from the 2004-2009 hospital-based, long-form Cx Ca data registry at Mackay Memorial Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan). The survivorship and overall survival were compared between these two groups (Stages IIA1 and IIA2) using log-rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-six and 15 patients were classified into Stages IIA1 and IIA2, respectively. Stage IIA2 patients were younger than those with Stage IIA1 disease (mean age, 47.4 vs. 55.1 years, p = 0.008), but no significant difference was observed in confirmed pelvic lymph node status (21.4% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.280) between them. Although the 2-year and 5-year overall survival was better among Stage IIA1 patients, there was no significant difference in survival between Stage IIA1 and IIA2 groups (2-year, 90.6% vs. 77.8%; 5-year, 86.3% vs. 51.9%, p = 0.218). CONCLUSION: Although there was a trend in survival difference between Stage IIA1 and IIA2 patients, the difference was not statistically significant. The revised FIGO 2009 staging system for Cx Ca defines a group of Stage IIA patients with bulky tumor (Stage IIA2) that are generally younger than Stage IIA1 patients. It is sensible to investigate an alternate or enhanced treatment scheme for Stage IIA2 patients. Ideally, the treatment scheme should prevent unnecessary radical surgery if a patient can be exposed to either chemotherapy or radiotherapy, alone or in combination.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for survival of patients with Stage IIA1 and IIA2 cervical cancer (Cx Ca). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A study cohort of 51 patients with Stage IIA Cx Ca was retrospectively collected from the 2004-2009 hospital-based, long-form Cx Ca data registry at Mackay Memorial Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan). The survivorship and overall survival were compared between these two groups (Stages IIA1 and IIA2) using log-rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-six and 15 patients were classified into Stages IIA1 and IIA2, respectively. Stage IIA2 patients were younger than those with Stage IIA1 disease (mean age, 47.4 vs. 55.1 years, p = 0.008), but no significant difference was observed in confirmed pelvic lymph node status (21.4% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.280) between them. Although the 2-year and 5-year overall survival was better among Stage IIA1 patients, there was no significant difference in survival between Stage IIA1 and IIA2 groups (2-year, 90.6% vs. 77.8%; 5-year, 86.3% vs. 51.9%, p = 0.218). CONCLUSION: Although there was a trend in survival difference between Stage IIA1 and IIA2 patients, the difference was not statistically significant. The revised FIGO 2009 staging system for Cx Ca defines a group of Stage IIA patients with bulky tumor (Stage IIA2) that are generally younger than Stage IIA1 patients. It is sensible to investigate an alternate or enhanced treatment scheme for Stage IIA2 patients. Ideally, the treatment scheme should prevent unnecessary radical surgery if a patient can be exposed to either chemotherapy or radiotherapy, alone or in combination.