LAUSR

Simple Summary The introduction of a revised staging system (FIGO 2018 staging system) for cervical cancer has led to a significant change in stage allocation for patients with early stage disease. It remains unclear how this change should be translated into treatment options, including less extensive surgery. With this Dutch national study we evaluated whether the revised staging system resulted in a more accurate prediction of overall and recurrence free survival compared to the previous FIGO 2009 staging system. In addition, we assessed other factors which may help the paradigm of treatment. We concluded that the revised FIGO 2018 staging system gives a more precise indication of survival outcomes of women with early stage cervical cancer. In addition, we believe that aside from stage, tumor characteristics, such as LVSI, and depth of invasion should be considered when offering patients less radical or less extensive treatment. Abstract The FIGO 2018 staging system was introduced to allow better prognostic differentiation in cervical cancer, causing considerable stage migration and affecting treatment options. We evaluated the accuracy of the FIGO 2018 staging in predicting recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to FIGO 2009 staging in clinically early stage cervical cancer. We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 2264 patients with preoperative FIGO (2009) IA1, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer between 2007–2017. Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to assess survival outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for lymph node metastasis and parametrial invasion. Stage migration occurred in 48% (22% down-staged, 26% up-staged). Survival data of patients down-staged from IB to IA1/2 disease were comparable with FIGO 2009 IA1/2 and better than patients remaining stage IB1. LVSI, invasion depth and parametrial invasion were risk factors for lymph node metastases. LVSI, grade and age were associated with parametrial invasion. In conclusion, the FIGO 2018 staging system accurately reflects prognosis in early stage cervical cancer and is therefore more suitable than the FIGO 2009 staging. However subdivision in IA1 or IA2 based on presence or absence of LVSI instead of depth of invasion would have improved accuracy. For patients down-staged to IA1/2, less radical surgery seems appropriate, although LVSI and histology should be considered when determining the treatment plan.