Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1809684
Measure of Stage Migration Due to Significant Nodes Detected on Imaging in Patients with Uterocervical Cancer Using the FIGO 2018 Staging System
Authors

Abstract
Background
While the earlier International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging guidelines for carcinoma cervix were only based on clinical examination findings, the revised guidelines published in 2018 incorporated imaging and pathological assessments to the staging system.
Aims and Objectives
This article compares the imaging-based new FIGO staging system with the old clinical staging and assesses the degree of stage migration.
Methods
In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, consecutive patients who were diagnosed with uterocervical cancer and underwent imaging (i.e., computed tomography [CT]/magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]/positron emission tomography-CT [PET-CT]/ultrasound [USG]) between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. Imaging findings were documented, and stage was assigned as per the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer and compared with the previous FIGO staging system. The degree of stage migration was compared between the new and the old FIGO staging systems. The degree of stage migration due to significant lymph nodes detected on different imaging modalities was assessed.
Results
274 patients with a mean age of 51 years and a range of 20 to 80 years were reviewed. The distribution as per the FIGO 2009 were: 0.3% (n = 1) in stage IA1 and IA2, 6.2% (n = 17) in stage IB1, 1% (n = 3) in stage IB2, 4% (n = 11) in stage IIA, 44.5% (n = 122) in stage IIB, 0.7% (n = 2) in stage IIIA, 27% (n = 74) in stage IIIB, 5.8% (n = 16) in stage IVA, and 7.2% (n = 20) in stage IVB. Among all these patients, 66.4% (n = 182) patients underwent USG, 53.6% (n = 147) underwent CT, 42.7% (n = 117) had MRI, and 3.6% (n = 10) underwent PET-CT. Only 4% (n = 8) and 0.5% (n = 1) patients who underwent USG at staging were detected to have significant parailiac and para-aortic nodes, respectively. On the other hand, 7.66% (n = 21) had significant para-aortic and 44.16% (n = 121) had significant parailiac nodes on other cross-sectional imaging modalities. There was stage migration in 36.86% of patients, with 23.72% upstaged to stage IIIC1.
Conclusion
Fewer lymph nodes were detected on USG than other cross-sectional imaging modalities. Adopting the new FIGO resulted in stage migration in 36.86% of patients, predominantly due to lymph node metastases detected on imaging.
Keywords
uterocervical cancer - carcinoma cervix - stage migration - FIGO 2018 - lymph node metastasisPublication History
Article published online:
25 June 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Lee SI, Atri M. 2018 FIGO staging system for uterine cervical cancer: enter cross-sectional imaging. Radiology 2019; 292 (01) 15-24
- 2 Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M. et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 145 (01) 129-135
- 3 Dhamija E, Gulati M, Manchanda S. et al. Imaging in carcinoma cervix and revised 2018 FIGO staging system: implications in radiology reporting. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021; 31 (03) 623-634
- 4 Bhatla N, Singhal S, Dhamija E, Mathur S, Natarajan J, Maheshwari A. Implications of the revised cervical cancer FIGO staging system. Indian J Med Res 2021; 154 (02) 273-283
- 5 Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 143 (Suppl. 02) 22-36
- 6 Salib MY, Russell JHB, Stewart VR. et al. 2018 FIGO staging classification for cervical cancer: added benefits of imaging. Radiographics 2020; 40 (06) 1807-1822
- 7 Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, Konishi I, Mikami M. Validation of the 2018 FIGO cervical cancer staging system. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 152 (01) 87-93
- 8 Tomizawa K, Kaminuma T, Murata K. et al. FIGO 2018 staging for cervical cancer: influence on stage distribution and outcomes in the 3D-image-guided brachytherapy era. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12 (07) 1770
- 9 Singh N, Rous B, Ganesan R. BAGP Information document: 2018 FIGO staging System for Cervix Cancer, version 1.5, September 2021
- 10 Selman TJ, Mann C, Zamora J, Appleyard TL, Khan K. Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2008; 178 (07) 855-862
- 11 Jung W, Park KR, Lee KJ. et al. Value of imaging study in predicting pelvic lymph node metastases of uterine cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol J 2017; 35 (04) 340-348
- 12 Dhamija E, Baby A, Bhatla N. et al. Radiological evaluation of metastatic lymph nodes in carcinoma cervix with emphasis on their infiltrative pattern. Indian J Med Res 2021; 154 (02) 383-390
- 13 Brunette LL, Bonyadlou S, Ji L. et al. Predictive value of FDG PET/CT to detect lymph node metastases in cervical cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2018; 43 (11) 793-801
- 14 Mathur P, Sathishkumar K, Chaturvedi M. et al; ICMR-NCDIR-NCRP Investigator Group. Cancer Statistics, 2020: report from National Cancer Registry Programme, India. JCO Glob Oncol 2020; 6: 1063-1075
- 15 Fischerova D, Frühauf F, Burgetova A, Haldorsen IS, Gatti E, Cibula D. The role of imaging in cervical cancer staging: ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines (Update 2023). Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16 (04) 775
- 16 Mansoori B, Khatri G, Rivera-Colón G, Albuquerque K, Lea J, Pinho DF. Multimodality imaging of uterine cervical malignancies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215 (02) 292-304
- 17 Hsiao YH, Yang SF, Chen YH. et al. Updated applications of ultrasound in uterine cervical cancer. J Cancer 2021; 12 (08) 2181-2189
- 18 Sponholtz SE, Mogensen O, Hildebrandt MG. et al. From FIGO-2009 to FIGO-2018 in women with early-stage cervical cancer; does the revised staging reflect risk groups?. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 163 (02) 281-288
- 19 Fischerova D, Smet C, Scovazzi U, Sousa DN, Hundarova K, Haldorsen IS. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European Joint Consensus statements. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024; 34 (03) 363-378
- 20 Olthof EP, Bergink-Voorthuis BJ, Wenzel HHB. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI, CT, and [18F]FDG-PET-CT in detecting lymph node metastases in clinically early-stage cervical cancer - a nationwide Dutch cohort study. Insights Imaging 2024; 15 (01) 36
- 21 Yan DD, Tang Q, Chen JH, Tu YQ, Lv XJ. Prognostic value of the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer patients with surgical risk factors. Cancer Manag Res 2019; Jun 13; 11: 5473-5480
- 22 Zeng J, Qu P, Hu Y, Sun P, Qi J, Zhao G, Gao Y. Clinicopathological risk factors in the light of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for early cervical cancer with staging IB: A single center retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; Apr; 99 (16) e19714
- 23 Grigsby PW, Massad LS, Mutch DG. et al. FIGO 2018 staging criteria for cervical cancer: Impact on stage migration and survival. Gynecol Oncol 2020; Jun; 157 (03) 639-643
- 24 Tomizawa K, Kaminuma T, Murata K. et al. FIGO 2018 staging for cervical cancer: influence on stage distribution and outcomes in the 3D-image-guided brachytherapy era. Cancers (Basel) 2020; Jul 2; 12 (07) 1770