Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34877225›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Stage Migration in Cervical Cancer Using the FIGO 2018 Staging System: A Retrospective Survival Analysis Using a Single-Institution Patient Cohort.

Toms Vengaloor Thomas, Kati K Reddy, Shivanthidevi Gandhi, Mary R Nittala, Anu Abraham, William Robinson, Mildred Ridgway, Satya Packianathan, Srinivasan Vijayakumar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Nodal status in predicting the outcome of treatment with definitive chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer in FIGO IIIC1 and IIIC2 stages.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Toms Vengaloor ThomasRadiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Kati K ReddyRadiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Shivanthidevi GandhiInternal Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Mary R NittalaRadiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Anu AbrahamPathology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
William RobinsonObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Mildred RidgwayObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Satya PackianathanRadiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
Srinivasan VijayakumarRadiation Oncology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA.
University of Mississippi Medical Center · USJackson Memorial Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) changed the staging system for cervical cancer in 2018 and formally allowed cross-sectional imaging for staging purposes. Stage IB is now divided into three substages based on tumor size (IB1 < 2 cm, IB2 2-4 cm and IB3 > 4 cm). The presence of lymph nodes in the pelvis or para-aortic region will upstage the patient to stage IIIC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent of stage migration using the FIGO 2018 staging system for cervical cancer and validate the new staging system by assessing the survival outcomes. Methods An Institutional Review Board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective analysis was performed on 158 patients from the cervical cancer database at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, USA. Patients had been treated between January 2010 and December 2018, and they were all staged according to the FIGO 2009 staging system previously. We collected data regarding tumor size, lymph node presence, and extent of metastatic disease in the pretreatment CT, positron emission tomography (PET), or MRI scans and restaged the patients using the FIGO 2018 system. The extent of stage migration was evaluated using the new staging system. We analyzed the three-year overall survival (OS) using both FIGO 2009 and 2018 staging systems for validation purposes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed using SPSS version 24. Results Fifty-nine percent of the patients were upstaged when they were restaged using the FIGO 2018 staging system. In the current 2018 staging system, Stage IB3 accounted for 4%, and Stage IIIC accounted for 48% of the patient cohort, while other stages accounted for the rest. The median overall survival of the entire cohort was 20.5 months. There was a change in the survival curves using FIGO 2018 stages compared to those of FIGO 2009. There was a numerical improvement in three-year OS in stages IB and III among the two staging systems; however, it was not statistically significant. Interestingly, the three-year overall survival of Stage IIIC patients was better when compared to Stages III A& B combined (61% vs. 25%, p=0.017). Conclusion The increased availability of cross-sectional imaging across the world has led to recent changes in the FIGO staging system for cervical cancer, which allowed imaging in staging. We identified a significant stage migration in our patient cohort with the FIGO 2018 staging system, but no difference in the three-year overall survival was observed. Local tumor extent may be a worse prognostic indicator than nodal metastasis among stage III patients.

Indexed as

cervical cancerfigogynecologymigrationobstetricsoncologyradiation oncologystage

Identifiers

PMID34877225
PMCPMC8645292
OpenAlexW3213945515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.