title: Stage IIA1 versus stage IIA2 cervical cancer: does the new staging criteria predict survival?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  (1) To determine the correlation of 2008 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system with survival in patients with stage IIA cervical cancer, (2) to elucidate the treatment patterns in stage IIA1 and stage IIA2 cervical cancer, and (3) to investigate whether radical hysterectomy or radiation influenced overall survival.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database between 1988 and 2005. Statistical analysis used χ test, Kaplan-Meier method, Cox regression, and logistic regression.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 560 women, 271 (48.4%) had stage IIA1, and 289 (51.6%) had stage IIA2 cervical cancer. Stage IIA2 patients were younger than stage IIA1 patients (mean age, 49 years vs 54 years; P = 0.01). Stage IIA1, compared with stage IIA2, differed significantly regarding the administration of primary radiation (47.2% vs 64.7%, P < 0.001) and adjuvant radiation (60.5% vs 77.5%, P = 0.006). The following variables were significantly associated with the performance of radical hysterectomy: patient age, 65 years or younger, tumor size, ≤ 2 cm or lesser, high tumor grade, and nonsquamous tumor histology. The incidence of adjuvant radiation after radical hysterectomy was high (48% [tumor size, ≤ 2 cm] to 86% [tumor size, >6 cm]). The 5-year overall survival was not significantly different between stages IIA1 and IIA2 (65.8% vs 59.5%, P = 0.2). Only patient age (P = 0.01), tumor size (P = 0.02), and lymph node status (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of survival. When controlled for other contributing factors, there was no significant difference in survival between patients treated by radical hysterectomy and primary radiation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The 2008 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging criteria is not an independent predictor of survival in stage IIA cervical cancer. Given the equivalent efficacy of radical hysterectomy and radiation, attention should be paid to the high risk of adjuvant radiation in these patients.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA. gunjalgarg@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Gunjal
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Garg
authors.forename: Jay P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.forename: Eugene P
authors.initials: EP
authors.lastname: Toy
authors.forename: Carl
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Christensen
authors.forename: Gunter
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Deppe
authors.forename: Radwan
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Asaad
authors.forename: Robert T
authors.initials: RT
authors.lastname: Morris
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002294:Carcinoma, Squamous Cell / Q000401:mortality* / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging / Q000379:methods*; D011379:Prognosis; D012042:Registries; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018426:SEER Program; D016019:Survival Analysis; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality* / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D055815:Young Adult