scholarly journals International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system revised: what should be considered critically for gynecologic cancer?

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hee Seung Kim ◽  
Yong Sang Song
Keyword(s):  
Gynecologic Cancer ◽  
Staging System ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics

Revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging: A review of gaps and questions that remain

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 873-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria Salvo ◽  
Diego Odetto ◽  
Rene Pareja ◽  
Michael Frumovitz ◽  
Pedro T Ramirez
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Cancer Staging ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Early Stage Disease ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Parametrial Involvement

Recently the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for cervical cancer was published. In this most recent classification, imaging modalities and pathologic information have been added as tools to determine the final stage of the disease. Although there are many merits to this new staging for cervical cancer, including more detailed categorization of early-stage disease as well as information on nodal distribution, the classification falls short in clarifying areas of controversy in the staging system. Many unanswered questions remain and, as such, a number of gaps lead to further debate in the interpretation of relevant clinical data. Factors such as measurement of tumor size, definition of parametrial involvement, ovarian metastases, lower uterine segment extension, lymph node metastasis, and imaging modalities are explored in this review. The goal is to focus on items that deserve further discussion and clarification in the most recent FIGO staging for cervical cancer.

scholarly journals Stage-Specific Outcomes of Patients With Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: A Comparison of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Systems

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 2066-2072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Zivanovic ◽  
Mario M. Leitao ◽  
Alexia Iasonos ◽  
Lindsay M. Jacks ◽  
Qin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Uterine Cancer ◽  
Staging System ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Uterine Leiomyosarcoma ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
American Joint Committee ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Staging Systems ◽  
Ajcc Staging System ◽  
Ajcc Staging

Purpose Uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is staged by the modified International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for uterine cancer. We aimed to determine whether the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) soft tissue sarcoma (STS) staging system is more accurate in predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods Patients with uterine LMS who presented at our institution from 1982 to 2005 were staged retrospectively according to a modified FIGO staging system and the AJCC STS staging system. The predictive accuracy of the two staging systems was compared using concordance estimation. Results Two hundred nineteen patients had sufficient clinical and pathologic information to be staged under both systems; 132 patients were upstaged using the AJCC staging system, whereas only four were downstaged. Stage-specific PFS and OS rates for stages I, II, and III differed substantially between the two staging systems. In both systems, there was prognostic overlap between stages II and III. Thus, despite the marked stage-specific differences in 5-year PFS and OS rates for stages I, II, and III, both systems had similar concordance indices. Conclusion Estimates of stage-specific PFS and OS for uterine LMS were altered substantially when using the AJCC versus FIGO staging system. Adjuvant treatment strategies should be tested in patients at substantial risk for disease progression and death. Neither the FIGO nor AJCC staging system is ideal for identifying such patients, suggesting a need for a uterine LMS-specific staging system to better target patients for trials of adjuvant therapies.

scholarly journals Comparing survival outcomes for cervical cancer based on the 2014 and 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wonkyo Shin ◽  
Tae Young Ham ◽  
Young Ran Park ◽  
Myong Cheol Lim ◽  
Young-Joo Won
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Staging System ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Lymph Node Status ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Staging Systems

AbstractThe International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging system was modified in 2018, introducing new stage IB subdivisions and new lymph node status considerations in stage IIIC. We compared cervical cancer survival outcomes according to the 2014 and 2018 FIGO staging systems. We selected 10% of cervical cancer cases (2010–2015) from the Korean national cancer registry (2010–2015) through a systematic sampling method. We collected information using a collaborative stage data collection system and evaluated the results according to both staging systems. The log-rank test was used to analyze overall survival differences. No significant difference in survival was observed between 2018 subdivisions IB1/IB2/IB3 (P = 0.069), whereas a considerable difference was observed between these subdivisions according to histological subtypes. In the 2018 FIGO staging system, stage IIIC had better survival than stage IIIA/IIIB (P < 0.001). We observed considerable heterogeneity in 2018 stage IIIC related to the corresponding stages of the 2014 staging system (stages IA1–IIIB). The size of the primary cervical mass was related to survival (P < 0.001). In conclusion, using lymph node status to define stage IIIC captured a broad range of prognoses. The inclusion of primary tumor size considerations may improve the staging accuracy of advanced cervical cancer.

International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging Classification for Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, and Peritoneum: Estimation of Survival in Patients With Node-Positive Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augusto Pereira ◽  
Tirso Pérez-Medina ◽  
Javier F. Magrina ◽  
Paul M. Magtibay ◽  
Ana Rodríguez-Tapia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Abdominal Lymph Node ◽  
Node Positive ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the survival of patients with node-positive epithelial ovarian cancer according to the 2014 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system.Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review. Data from all consecutive patients with node-positive epithelial ovarian cancer (stages IIIC and IV) who underwent cytoreductive surgery at the Mayo Clinic from 1996 to 2000 were reassessed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the new FIGO stages. Multivariate Cox regression was performed, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves constructed.ResultsThe distribution of the restaged patients was as follows: IIIA1, 23 patients (IIIA1i, 9 patients; and IIIA1ii, 14 patients); IIIA2, 3 patients; IIIB, 4; IIIC, 67 patients; IVA, 4 patients; and IVB, 15 patients. In the univariate analysis, the relative risk for positive nodes greater than 10 mm on the longer axis was 2.57 and 3.00 for patients with microscopic peritoneal disease, compared with patients with microscopic positive nodes. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, the univariate analyses revealed statistically significant differences for 2014 FIGO stages (IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IVA-B), anatomical sites of peritoneal metastases, and disease staged at IIIC because of the presence of omental metastases. Multivariate analysis showed that survival was higher in patients restaged to IIIA-B than in those restaged to IIIC and IV (hazard ratios, 2.75 and 3.16, respectively; P = 0.002). The hazard ratio for patients with abdominal peritoneal metastases was 2.76 compared with patients with pelvic peritoneal metastases (P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe current 2014 FIGO staging system for ovarian cancer successfully correlates survival, anatomical location of peritoneal metastases, and extra-abdominal lymph node metastases.

scholarly journals The Revised 2009 FIGO Staging System for Endometrial Cancer: Should the 1988 FIGO Stages IA and IB Be Altered?

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum ◽  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Alexia Iasonos ◽  
Kaled M. Alektiar ◽  
Mario M. Leitao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Predictive Ability ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Stage Ia

ObjectivesThe revised 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for endometrial cancer included many changes over the 1988 system, particularly for stage I subgroups. We sought to describe the overall survival (OS) of women with stage I endometrial cancer and examine how the estimated stage-specific OS is altered in the 2009 system.MethodsA prospectively maintained institutional endometrial database was analyzed. All patients underwent primary surgery between January 1993 and June 2009.ResultsData from 1658 women were analyzed, including 1307 patients with FIGO 1988 stage I disease. The 5-year OS for the 1988 stages IA (92.4%), IB (87.3%), and IC (75.7%) significantly differed (P < 0.001). When patients were restaged using the 2009 system, we identified 1411 stage I patients with 5-year OS for 2009 stage IA of 89.2%, versus OS of 75.1% for IB (P = 0.001). The adjusted concordance probabilities for the 1988 stage I group and 2009 stage I group were 0.612 (SD, 0.0014) and 0.536 (SD, 0.0111), respectively.ConclusionsThe 1988 FIGO classification of stage I endometrial cancer correctly identified 3 subgroups of patients who had significantly different OS. Specifically, 1988 FIGO stages IA and IB had distinct oncologic outcomes. The revised 2009 system eliminates the most favorable group from the new classification system, and estimates of stage-specific OS for stage IB are substantially altered by the changes made in 2009. The revised system for stage I did not improve its predictive ability over the 1988 system. These data highlight the importance of developing individualized risk-prediction models and nomograms in endometrial cancer.

scholarly journals Imaging in Carcinoma Cervix and Revised 2018 FIGO Staging System: Implications in Radiology Reporting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekta Dhamija ◽  
Malvika Gulati ◽  
Smita Manchanda ◽  
Seema Singhal ◽  
Dayanand Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rates ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Lymph Node Status ◽  
Carcinoma Cervix ◽  
Disease Extent ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Pathological Evaluation

AbstractThe International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system of carcinoma cervix saw a radical change in 2018 with the inclusion of cross-sectional imaging tools for the assessment of disease extent and staging. One of the major revisions is the inclusion of lymph node status, detected either on imaging or pathological evaluation, in the staging system. The changes were based on long-term patient follow-up and survival rates reported in literature. Thus, it becomes imperative for a radiologist to be well versed with the recent staging system, its limitations, and implications on the patient management.

scholarly journals Validation of The 2018 FIGO Staging System for Predicting The Prognosis of Patients With Stage IIIC Cervical Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingtao Long ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Dongling Zou ◽  
Dong Wang ◽  
Jingshu Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
T Stage ◽  
Figo Staging ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Standardized Treatment

Abstract Purpose We aimed to validate the prognostic performance of the 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics(FIGO) IIIC staging system for patients with cervical cancer. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with stage III cervical cancer according to the 2018 FIGO staging system who received standardized treatment from January 2011 to December 2014. Results Multivariable analysis revealed that stage IIIC1 was not significantly associated with increased risk of death compared with stages IIIA (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.432; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.867 to 2.366; P = 0.161) and IIIB (HR = 1.261; 95% CI: 0.871 to 1.827; P = 0.219). Stage IIIC2 was an independent indicator of increased risk of mortality compared with stages IIIA (HR = 2.958; 95% CI :1.757 to 4.983; P < 0.001) and IIIB (HR = 2.606; 95% CI: 1.752 to 3.877; P < 0.001). We stratified patients with stage IIIC1 according to T stage and compared survival outcomes. Stage IIIC1 (T1) was associated with longer 5-year overall survival (OS) compared with stages IIIA (P = 0.004) or IIIB (P < 0.001). An optimal cut-off value (= 2) was established for predicting the prognosis of stage IIIC1p(T1/T2a), which was associated with the number of pelvic lymph nodes metastases (PLNMs). Patients with stage IIIC1pN1-2 experienced longer 5-year OS compared those with stages IIIA (P = 0.01) or IIIB (P < 0.001). Conclusion Patients with stage IIIC1 cervical cancer exhibited heterogeneous clinical characteristics reflecting their variable prognoses, depending on T-stage and the extent of PLNMs

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document