Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology published the first guidelines for the treatment of cervical cancer in 2007. The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of the introduction of the first guideline on clinical trends and outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent surgery.

Methods

This analysis included 9,756 patients who were diagnosed based on the pathological Tumor-Node-Metastasis (pTNM) classification (i.e., pT1b1, pT1b2, pT2b and pN0, pN1, pNX) and received surgery as a primary treatment between 2004 and 2009. Data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed, and clinicopathological trends were assessed. The influence of the introduction of the guideline on survival was determined by using a competing risk model.

Results

For surgery cases, the estimated subdistribution hazard ratio (HR) by the competing risk model for the influence of the guideline adjusted for age, year of registration, pT classification, pN classification, histological type, and treatment methods was 1.024 (p=0.864). Following the introduction of the first guideline in 2007, for patients with lymph node metastasis, the use of chemotherapy (CT) as a postsurgical therapy increased, whereas that of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT)/radiotherapy (RT) decreased (p<0.010). For pN1 cases, the estimated subdistribution HR by the competing risk model for the influence of the guideline was 1.094 (p=0.634). There was no significance in the postsurgical therapy between CT and CCRT/RT (p=0.078).

Conclusions

Survival of surgical cases was not improved by the introduction of the guidelines. It is necessary to consider more effective postsurgical therapy for high-risk early-stage cervical cancer.

SUBMITTER: Ikeda M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039172 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To explore the value of multiple clinical endpoints in the unique setting of ovarian cancer.A clinical trial workgroup was established by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology to develop a consensus statement via multiple conference calls, meetings and white paper drafts.Clinical trial endpoints have profound effects on late phase clinical trial design, result interpretation, drug development, and regulatory approval of therapeutics. Selection of the optimal clinical trial endpoint is particularly provocative in ovarian cancer where long overall survival (OS) is observed. The lack of new regulatory approvals and the lack of harmony between regulatory bodies globally for ovarian cancer therapeutics are of concern. The advantages and disadvantages of the numerous endpoints available are herein discussed within the unique context of ovarian cancer where both crossover and post-progression therapies potentially uncouple surrogacy between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, the two most widely supported and utilized endpoints. The roles of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) are discussed, but even these widely supported parameters are affected by the unique characteristics of ovarian cancer where a significant percentage of patients may be asymptomatic. Original data regarding the endpoint preferences of ovarian cancer advocates is presented.Endpoint selection in ovarian cancer clinical trials should reflect the impact on disease burden and unique characteristics of the treatment cohort while reflecting true patient benefit. Both OS and PFS have led to regulatory approvals and are clinically important. OS remains the most objective and accepted endpoint because it is least vulnerable to bias; however, the feasibility of OS in ovarian cancer is compromised by the requirement for large trial size, prolonged time-line for final analysis, and potential for unintended loss of treatment effect from active post-progression therapies. A large magnitude of effect in PFS improvement should establish benefit, and further communication with regulatory authorities to clarify acceptable endpoints should be undertaken.