J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Jul;32(4):e62. English.
Published online Apr 19, 2021.
Copyright © 2021. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Editorial

Should adjuvant chemotherapy be formally studied among patients found to have pelvic lymph node metastases following radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer?

Alyssa C. Bujnak and Krishnansu S. Tewari
    • Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, CA, USA.
Received April 05, 2021; Accepted April 05, 2021.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The management of cervical cancer continues to evolve. Treatment guidelines are periodically reissued by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO), the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and made available for oncologists practicing in Japan, the European Union, and the United States, respectively.

For example, the NCCN guidelines have recommended primary chemoradiation for the treatment of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB2 or greater in their guidelines since 2016 [1]. ESMO guidelines for the management of cervical cancer for FIGO stage IB2 or greater support primary surgical management with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node versus primary chemoradiation [2]. Coincidingly the JSGO has recommended radical hysterectomy followed by risk stratification for adjuvant therapy versus primary chemoradiation as the treatment for FIGO stage IB–II cervical cancer in 2017 guidelines [3]. In Japan surgical treatment was chosen at a higher rate as the primary treatment for stages IB1 (90%), IB2 (79%), IIA1 (66%), IIA2 (59%), and IIB (44%) in a survey report of clinicians in 2014 [4].

While the JSGO, NCCN, and ESMO approach their guidelines using an evidence-based approach derived often from randomized clinical trials, FIGO updates the staging classification of gynecologic cancers through consensus in an effort to facilitate comparison of outcomes from different centers. Although no provision of treatment algorithms reside in the FIGO mandate, there are significant clinical implications that track with updated staging nomenclature. Importantly, in 2018 a major change was made in the FIGO staging of cervical cancer in that lymph node involvement (via histologic or radiologic assessment) is now designated as stage IIIC. This ramification was in response to the importance of lymph node metastasis as a major prognostic factor associated with decreased survival among women with early-stage and locally advanced disease [1].

In this issue of Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, Ikeda et al. [5] posed a similar question. The objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of the introduction of the JSGO published guidelines (2007) for the treatment of cervical cancer on clinical trends and outcomes for patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent surgery. This retrospective observational study utilized the JSOG cancer registry program database to evaluate postsurgical treatment and outcomes among 9,756 patients that underwent radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for cervical cancer from 2004 to 2009. Postsurgical management selections and outcomes were compared before the publication of the 2007 guidelines to after the publication of the guidelines. Results from the study showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival or in clinical practice trends after the introduction of the JSGO 2007 guidelines for the management of cervical cancer [5]. This study also specifically evaluated the influence of the guidelines on management and outcomes of early cervical cancer (pT1b1, pT1b2, pT2b) with positive lymph nodes.

Ikeda et al. [5] also suggest that differences in surgical technique among gynecologic oncologists may also play a role in postsurgical adjuvant therapy selection. Modifications have been made to the original technique of the radical hysterectomy over time. In Japan the Okabayashi method of radical hysterectomy technique is used and is considered more radical than other modifications; it is therefore believed to acquire greater rates of control of local pelvic disease. Additionally, in Japan it is common practice for a thorough pelvic lymph node dissection be completed. With the thought process that a more radical surgical technique has been performed, gynecologic oncologists may feel that systemic control with chemotherapy is more relevant than therapy that targets local disease control. In reality studies have found that though aggressive surgery followed by chemotherapy might decrease the rate of distant recurrence, patients have similar local recurrence rates [6]. A retrospective study by Hosaka et al. [7] found that radical surgical technique followed by chemoradiation may lead to higher morbidity than postsurgical chemotherapy alone.

The 2007 JSGO guidelines recommended that patients with pelvic lymph node metastasis receive postsurgical adjuvant therapy with either whole-pelvic irradiation or chemoradiation, and that the usefulness of adjuvant chemotherapy alone was unknown. Despite these recommendations, the study found that chemotherapy tended to be increasingly selected as postsurgical treatment in patients with early cervical cancer (pT1b1, pT1b2, pT2b) with positive lymph nodes, though this trend was not statistically significant [5]. As previously mentioned, positive lymph nodes are an important prognostic factor in cervical cancer, with a recurrence rate of greater than 40% compared to patients without lymph node metastasis. Lymph node involvement has also been shown to have a higher rate of distant failure [8, 9, 10]. Considering these findings, systemic chemotherapy has been proposed as postsurgical adjuvant therapy to control both local recurrence and prevent distant metastatic disease. Ikeda et al. [5] suggested that perhaps gynecologic oncologists considered positive pelvic lymph nodes as systemic disease that would not be sufficiently treated with local treatment with chemoradiation as was recommended by the guidelines. The benefit of chemotherapy as postsurgical treatment has not yet been clearly demonstrated [11]. Although the ongoing phase 3 randomized trial, GOG-0724 (NCT00980954), is studying the efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with high-risk early stage disease who have been treated by radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy and postoperative chemoradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy alone has not yet been formally studied in this population. The observation by Ikeda et al. [5] that many oncologists have adopted postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy when nodal disease is detected indicates a gap in our knowledge concerning the natural history of the disease. The presence of pelvic nodal metastases may represent a harbinger of systemic disease. If this is the case, then perhaps it is finally time to study postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy alone among women with node-positive disease.

Notes

Conflict of Interest:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions:

  • Conceptualization: T.K.S.

  • Writing - original draft: B.A.C.

  • Writing - review & editing: B.A.C., T.K.S.

References

    1. Tewari KS, Monk BJ. Evidence-based treatment paradigms for management of invasive cervical carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2472–2489.
    1. Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, et al. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017;28:iv72–83.
    1. Ebina Y, Mikami M, Nagase S, Tabata T, Kaneuchi M, Tashiro H, et al. Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines 2017 for the treatment of uterine cervical cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2019;24:1–19.
    1. Saito T, Takahashi F, Katabuchi H. 2016 Committee on Gynecologic Oncology of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Annual Report of the Committee on Gynecologic Oncology, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology: patient annual report for 2014 and treatment annual report for 2009. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017;43:1667–1677.
    1. Ikeda M, Shida M, Shigeta S, Nagase S, Takahashi F, Yamagami W, et al. The trend and outcome of postsurgical therapy for high-risk early-stage cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis in Japan: a report from the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) guidelines evaluation committee. J Gynecol Oncol 2021;32:e44
    1. Matsuo K, Shimada M, Aoki Y, Sakamoto M, Takeshima N, Fujiwara H, et al. Comparison of adjuvant therapy for node-positive clinical stage IB-IIB cervical cancer: Systemic chemotherapy versus pelvic irradiation. Int J Cancer 2017;141:1042–1051.
    1. Hosaka M, Watari H, Takeda M, Moriwaki M, Hara Y, Todo Y, et al. Treatment of cervical cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy after radical hysterectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34:552–556.
    1. Fuller AF Jr, Elliott N, Kosloff C, Hoskins WJ, Lewis JL Jr. Determinants of increased risk for recurrence in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for stage IB and IIA carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1989;33:34–39.
    1. Takekuma M, Kasamatsu Y, Kado N, Kuji S, Tanaka A, Takahashi N, et al. The issues regarding postoperative adjuvant therapy and prognostic risk factors for patients with stage I-II cervical cancer: a review. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017;43:617–626.
    1. Pearcey R, Dundas G, Schepansky A, Birchall I, Capstick V, MacLean G, et al. ‘Is there a role for adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy after radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer?’. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1992;2:56.
    1. Matsuo K, Machida H, Horowitz MP, Shahzad MMK, Guntupalli SR, Roman LD, et al. Risk of metachronous ovarian cancer after ovarian conservation in young women with stage I cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:580.e1–580.e10.

Metrics
Share
PERMALINK