INTRODUCTION

FIGO 2018 IIIC remains controversial for the heterogeneity of its prognoses. To ensure a better management of cervical cancer patients in Stage IIIC, a revision of the FIGO IIIC version classification is required according to local tumor size.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled cervical cancer patients of FIGO 2018 Stages I-IIIC who had undergone radical surgery or chemoradiotherapy. Based on the tumor factors from the Tumor Node Metastasis staging system, IIIC cases were divided into IIIC-T1, IIIC-T2a, IIIC-T2b, and IIIC-(T3a+T3b). Oncologcial outcomes of all stages were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 63 926 cervical cancer cases were identified, among which 9452 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier pairwise analysis showed that: the oncology outcomes of I and IIA were significantly better than of IIB, IIIA+IIIB, and IIIC; the oncology outcome of IIIC-(T1-T2b) was significantly better than of IIIA+IIIB and IIIC-(T3a+T3b); no significant difference was noted between IIB and IIIC-(T1-T2b), or IIIC-(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB. Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with IIIC-T1, Stages T2a, T2b, IIIA+IIIB and IIIC-(T3a+T3b) were associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. There was no significant difference in the risk of death or recurrence/death between patients with IIIC-(T1-T2b) and IIB. Also, compared with IIB, IIIC-(T3a+T3b) was associated with a higher risk of death and recurrence/death. No significant differences in the risk of death and recurrence/death were noted between IIIC-(T3a+T3b) and IIIA+IIIB.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of oncology outcomes of the study, FIGO 2018 Stage IIIC of cervical cancer is unreasonable. Stages IIIC-T1, T2a, and T2b may be integrated as IIC, and it might be unnecessary for T3a/T3b cases to be subdivided by lymph node status.