Different surgical methods for FIGO stage IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess survival differences between non-extensive surgery (NES) and extensive surgery (ES) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from a population-based database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results.

METHODS

Propensity matching was conducted to minimize heterogeneity. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients met screening criteria, among whom 84 patients (84/154) underwent NES while 70 patients (70/154) underwent ES. After matching, no survival advantage was observed in ES group compared with NES group (p=0.066; hazard ratio [HR]=1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.97-2.42). Stratified analyses suggested ES prolonged overall survival in patients with histology other than squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma (p=0.028; HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.15-0.89) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage T1 (p=0.009; HR=0.18; 95% CI=0.05-0.66). Despite no survival benefit after regional lymph node surgery (p=0.629; HR=0.88; 95% CI=0.53-1.47), subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients younger than 50 (p=0.006; HR=0.21; 95% CI=0.07-0.64), with AJCC T stage T1 (p=0.002; HR=0.09; 95% CI=0.02-0.42), T3 (p=0.001; HR=0.02; 95% CI=0.00-0.21), hematogenous metastasis (p=0.036; HR=0.27; 95% CI=0.08-0.92) and without surgery of other sites (p0.040; HR=0.01; 95% CI=0.00-0.79) might achieve longer survival after regional lymph node surgery.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ES or regional lymph node surgery may provide survival advantage for certain subgroup of FIGO IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, it deserves large scale prospective clinical trials to confirm.