Advertisement

The Revised FIGO Staging of Cervical Cancer (2018): Implications for India and the LMICs

  • Neerja BhatlaEmail author
  • Shalini Rajaram
  • Amita Maheshwari
Editorial
  • 5 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Controversies to Consensus : Recent advances

Staging systems are integral to the practice of oncology. In the case of gynaecologic cancers, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) first initiated the staging of cervical cancer in 1928. It was finally completed in 1958, and FIGO thus became the first organisation in the world to describe staging [1]. Staging classifications of other gynaecologic organs were described thereafter by FIGO. The International Union for Cancer Control (UICC) and the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) described staging systems thereafter, but in the case of gynaecologic cancers, they continue to align the TNM classifications with the FIGO staging.

The most important function of a good staging classification is to discriminate survival differences as the stage advances. As a corollary, this correlates with prognosis and is used to plan the best management strategy. Using a uniform staging system is a fundamental prerequisite for comparison of epidemiology and outcomes...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Odicino F, Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Creasman WT. History of FIGO cancer staging. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;101(2):205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    23-Cervix-uteri-fact-sheet.pdf. Available from https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/23-cervix-uteri-fact-sheet.pdf. Accessed on 19 Jun 2019.
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez AD, Graniel CL, Enciso G, et al. Phase II study of multimodality treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer: neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by radical hysterectomy and adjuvant cisplatin chemoradiation. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1278–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minig L, Patrono MG, Romero N, et al. Different strategies of treatment for uterine cervical carcinoma stage IB2-IIB. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5:86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yeo RM, Chia YN, Namuduri RP, et al. Tailoring adjuvant radiotherapy for stage IB-IIA node negative cervical carcinoma after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using the GOG score. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al. Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage IB-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:535–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rose PG, Adler LP, Rodriguez M, et al. Positron emission tomography for evaluating para-aortic nodal metastasis in locally advanced cervical cancer before surgical staging: a surgicopathologic study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang WT, Lam WW, Yu MY, et al. Comparison of dynamic helical CT and dynamic MR imaging in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in cervical carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:759–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB, Myers ER. FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischerova D, Cibula D, Stenhova H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:766–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plante M, Gregoire J, Renaud M-C, Roy M. The vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update of a series of 125 cases and 106 pregnancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bentivegna E, Gouy S, Maulard A, et al. Oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):e240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello M et al New revised FIGO staging of cervical cancer (2018). Abstract S020.2. Presented at the FIGO XX11 World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 14–19, 2018. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 3);  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12584.
  14. 14.
    Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello-Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corrigendum to “Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri” [Int J Gynecol Obstet 145(2019) 129–135]. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;147:279–280.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12969.

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neerja Bhatla
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shalini Rajaram
    • 2
  • Amita Maheshwari
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity College of Medical SciencesDelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecologic OncologyTata Memorial CentreMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations