The Reasons of Changes in Revised Staging for Carcinoma of the Vulva

Česká verze

Authors: B. Sehnal ¹; E. Kmoníčková ²; K. Maxová ¹; H. Koutníková ³; Daniel Driák ¹ ; H. Neumannová ¹; P. Bolehovská ¹; J. Sláma ⁴
Authors place of work: Gynekologicko‑porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha ¹; Ústav radiační onkologie, Komplexní onkologické centrum 1. LF UK a Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha ²; Patologicko‑anatomické oddělení 1. LF UK a Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha ³; Onkogynekologické centrum, Gynekologicko‑porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze ⁴
Published in the journal: Klin Onkol 2013; 26(5): 319-322
Category: Přehled

Summary

Background:
Review of revised staging system for vulva, explaining the changes of staging and their impact on the prognosis of disease is presented.

Aim:
The main objectives of a reliable staging system include an assessment of prognosis, planning treatment, and the evaluation of their outcomes. A good staging system must meet three basic characteristics: validity, reliability and practicality. Since medical research and practice in the field of oncology have shown explosive growth, the staging of vulvar cancer and some other cancers did not give a good spread of prognostic groupings. Changes based on new findings were proposed in 2008 by the FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology, approved, and published a year later the changes in the staging system for carcinoma of the vulva. Stage 0 was deleted, since it represents pre‑invasive lesion. Stage IA remained unchanged and stage I and II were combined. The number and morphology of the involved nodes were taken into account, and the bilaterality of positive nodes has been discounted.

Conclusion:
The purpose of a good staging system is to offer a classification of the extent of gynecological cancer, in order to provide a method of conveying one‘s clinical experience to others for the comparison of different treatment methods. As a result of the explosion of medical research in the field of oncology, the staging of some of the gynecological cancers became outdated and did not give a good spread of prognostic groupings. According to the revised staging for carcimona of the vulva, patients are divided to groups with similar prognosis. Therefore, exchange of relevant information between oncological centers is facilitated, thus disseminating knowledge and stimulating research in other parts of the world.

Key words:
cancer staging –⁠ cancer of the vulva –⁠ TNM staging –⁠ FIGO staging –⁠ gynecological cancer

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
15. 4. 2013

Accepted:
30. 4. 2013

Zdroje

1. Svod.cz [internetová stránka]. Český národní webový portál epidemiologie nádorů. Systém pro vizualizaci onkologických dat. Institut biostatistiky a analýz Lékařské a Přírodovědecké fakulty Masarykovy univerzity (IBA MU). Dostupné z: http:/ / www.svod.cz.

2. Rob L. Schůzka vedoucích onkogynekologických center, ústní sdělení. FN Motol, Praha 5, 8. dubna 2013.

3. Cibula D, Petruželka L et al (eds). Onkogynekologie. 1. vyd. Praha: Grada 2009 : 343.

4. Benedet JL, Pecorelli S. Why cancer staging? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 95 (Suppl 1): S3.

5. Odicino F, Pecorelli S, Zigliani L et al. History of the FIGO cancer staging system. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 101(2): 205 –⁠ 210.

6. Figo.org [homepage on the Internet]. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Available from: http:/ / www.figo.org.

7. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekina Ch; UICC. TNM klasifikace zhoubných novotvarů. 7th ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley ‑⁠ Blackwell 2009, česká verze 2011 : 17 –⁠ 29, 159 –⁠ 163.

8. Denoix PF (ed.). Nomenclature des cancers. 1st ed. Paris: Bull Inst Nat Hyg 1944 : 69 –⁠ 73.

9. Gospodarowicz M, Benedet L, Hutter RV et al. History and international development in cancer staging. Cancer Prev Control 1998; 2(6): 262 –⁠ 268.

10. Benedet JL. Indroduction. CME J Gynecol Oncol 2001; 6 : 229.

11. Pettersson F (ed.). Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. FIGO 1988, 20th volume.

12. Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD et al. Management of regional lymph nodes and their prognostic influence in vulvar cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61(4): 408 –⁠ 412.

13. Hoffman JS, Kumar NB, Morley GW. Prognostic signifikance of groin lymph node metastases in squamosus carcinoma of vulva. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66(3): 402 –⁠ 405.

14. Homesley HD, Bundy BN, Sedlis A et al. Assessment of current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of vulvar carcinoma relative to prognostic factors for survival (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Am J Obstet Gynecology 1991; 164(4): 997 –⁠ 1004.

15. Burger MP, Hollema H, Emanuels AG et al. The importance of the groin node status for the survival of T1 and T2 vulval carcinoma patients. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 57(3): 327 –⁠ 334.

16. Morley GW. Infiltrative carcinoma of the vulva: result of surgical treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 124(8): 874 –⁠ 888.

17. Hacker NF. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105(2): 105 –⁠ 106.

18. Hopkins MP, Reid GC, Johnston CM et al. A comparison of staging systems for squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 47(1): 34 –⁠ 37.

19. Tantipalakorn C, Robertson G, Marsden DE et al. Outcome and patterns of recurrence for FIGO stages I and IIsquamosus cell vulvar cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(4): 895 –⁠ 901.

20. Origoni M, Sideri, M, Garsia S et at. Prognostic value of pathological patterns of lymph node positivity in squamosus cell carcinoma of the vulva stage III and IVA FIGO. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 45(3): 313 –⁠ 316.

21. Paladini D, Cross P, Lopes A et al. Prognostic significance of lymph node variables in squamosus cell carcinoma of the vulva. Cancer 1994; 74(9): 2491 –⁠ 2496.

22. van der Velden J, van Lindert AC, Lammes FB et al. Extracapsular growth of lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva. Cancer 1995; 75(12): 2885 –⁠ 2890.

23. Lataifeh I, Nascimento MN, Nicklin JL et at. Patterns of recurrence and disease‑free survival in advanced squamosus cell carcinoma of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 95(3): 701 –⁠ 705.

24. Raspagliesi F, Hanozet F, Ditto A et al. Clinical and pathologic prognostic factors in squamosus cell carcinoma of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 102(2): 333 –⁠ 337.

25. Bösze P. Prognostic factors and staging: the role of molecular markers. CME J Gynecol Oncol 2001; 6 : 232 –⁠ 234.

26. Fons G, Hyde SE, Buist M et al. Prognostic value of bilateral positive nodes in squamosus cell cancer of the vulva. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009, 19(7): 1276 –⁠ 1280.

27. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105(2): 103 –⁠ 104.