Ester P. Olthof

Upon discovery of lymph node metastasis during radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer, the gynaecologist may pursue one of two treatment strategies: abandonment of surgery followed by primary (chemo)radiotherapy (PRT) or completion of radical hysterectomy, followed by adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (RHRT). Current guidelines recommend PRT over RHRT, as combined treatment is presumably associated with increased morbidity. However, this review of literature suggests there are no significant differences in survival and recurrence and total proportions of adverse events between treatment strategies. Additionally, both strategies are associated with varying types of adverse events, and affect quality of life and sexual functioning differently, both in the short and long term. Although total proportions of adverse events were comparable between treatment strategies, lower extremity lymphoedema was reported more often after RHRT and symptom experience (e.g. distress from bladder or bowel problems) and sexual dysfunction more often after PRT. As reporting of adverse events, quality of life and sexual functioning were not standardised across the articles included, and covariate adjustment was not conducted in most of the analyses, comparability of studies is hampered. Accumulating retrospective evidence suggests no major differences on oncological outcome and morbidity after PRT and RHRT for intraoperatively discovered lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer. However, conclusions should be considered cautiously, as all studies were of retrospective design with small sample sizes. Still, treatment strategies seem to affect adverse events, quality of life and sexual functioning in different ways, allowing room for shared decision-making and personalised treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment strategies for bulky lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer scheduled for definitive chemoradiation include nodal boosting with radiotherapy, surgical debulking, or both. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival and toxicity in patients receiving these treatments and to compare them with a group that received neither form of treatment. METHODS: Women diagnosed between January 2009 and January 2017 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2, IIA2-IVA cervical cancer with lymph nodes ≥1.5 cm without upper limit on pretreatment imaging and treated with definitive chemoradiation were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized by intention-to-treat strategy: boosting, debulking, or neither treatment, with subgroup analysis for patients receiving both treatments, that is, debulking with boosting. Overall and relapse-free survival outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses and toxicity by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 190 patients, 101 (53%) received only nodal boosting, 31 (16%) debulking alone, 29 (15%) debulking combined with boosting, and 29 (15%) received neither treatment. The 5 year overall and relapse-free survival for the treatment groups were 58%, 45% and 45% (p=0.19), and 47%, 44% and 46% (p=0.87), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analyses demonstrated no differences in overall and relapse-free survival. Combination of debulking with boosting was associated with decreased overall and relapse-free survival compared with debulking alone (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.00; and HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.93). Nodal boosting was independently associated with a decreased toxicity risk compared with debulking strategy (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no survival benefit from either nodal boosting or debulking strategy in patients with suspicious bulky nodes. Nodal boosting might, however, be associated with less toxicity. Dual treatment with debulking and boosting showed a worse survival outcome because this group probably represents patients with poor prognostic factors.

Abstract Objectives Imaging is increasingly used to assess lymph node involvement in clinically early-stage cervical cancer. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, CT, and [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT. Methods Women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer and pretreatment imaging between 2009 and 2017 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient-based and region-based (i.e. pelvic and common iliac) nodal status was extracted from radiology reports. Pathology results were considered the reference standard for calculating accuracy indices. Multiple imputation was used for missing pathology to limit verification bias risk. Results Nodal assessment was performed in 1676 patients with MRI, 926 with CT, and 379 with [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT, with suspicious nodes detected in 17%, 16%, and 48%, respectively. [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT was used to confirm MRI/CT results in 95% of patients. Pathology results were imputed for 30% of patients. [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT outperformed MRI and CT in detecting patient-based nodal metastases with sensitivities of 80%, 48%, and 40%, and AUCs of 0.814, 0.706, and 0.667, respectively, but not in specificity: 79%, 92%, and 92%. Region-based analyses showed similar indices in the pelvic region, but worse performance in the common iliac region with AUCs of 0.575, 0.554, and 0.517, respectively. Conclusions [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT outperformed MRI and CT in detecting nodal metastases, which may be related to its use as a verification modality. However, MRI and CT had the highest specificity. As MRI is generally performed routinely to assess local and regional spread of cervical cancer, [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT can be used to confirm suspicious nodes. Critical relevance statement Accurate assessment of the nodal status in clinically early-stage cervical cancer is essential for tumour staging, treatment decision making and prognosis. Key points • The accuracy of MRI, CT or [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT for nodal staging in early cervical cancer is a subject of discussion. • Overall, [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT outperformed MRI, followed by CT, when used as a verification modality. • Staging with MRI and the addition of [ 18 F]FDG-PET-CT to verify high-risk cases seems to be a good approach. Graphical Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To establish the impact of the number of lymph node metastases (nLNM) and the lymph node ratio (LNR) on survival in patients with early-stage cervical cancer after surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this nationwide historical cohort study, all women diagnosed between 1995 and 2020 with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer and nodal metastases after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were selected. Optimal cut-offs for prognostic stratification by nLNM and LNR were calculated to categorize patients into low-risk or high-risk groups. Kaplan-Meier overall survival analysis and flexible parametric relative survival analysis were used to determine the impact of nLNM and LNR on survival. Missing data were imputed. RESULTS: The optimal cut-off point was ≥4 for nLNM and ≥0.177 for LNR. Of the 593 women included, 500 and 501 (both 84%) were categorized into the low-risk and 93 and 92 (both 16%) into the high-risk groups for nLNM and LNR, respectively. Both high-risk groups had a worse 5-year overall survival (p < 0.001) compared with the low-risk groups. Being classified into the high-risk groups is an independent risk factor for relative survival, with excess hazard ratios of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 1.6-3.5) for nLNM and 2.5 (95% confidence interval 1.7-3.8) for LNR. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting a patient's nodal status postoperatively by the number of positive nodes, or by the nodal ratio, can support further risk stratification regarding survival in the case of node-positive early-stage cervical cancer.