Purpose of This PDQ Summary
General Information
Cellular Classification
Stage Information

TNM Definitions AJCC Stage Groupings FIGO Staging

Treatment Option Overview
Stage 0 Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IA Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IB Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IIA Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IIB Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage III Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IVA Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Stage IVB Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Recurrent Cervical Cancer

Current Clinical Trials

Get More Information From NCI
Changes to This Summary (05/16/2008)
More Information

Purpose of This PDQ Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of cervical cancer. This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board.

Information about the following is included in this summary:

• Prognostic factors.
• Cellular classification.
• Staging.
• Treatment options by cancer stage.

This summary is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Some of the reference citations in the summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations. Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options are described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for reimbursement determinations.

This summary is available in a patient version, written in less technical language, and in Spanish.

Back to Top

General Information

Note: Separate PDQ summaries on Cervical Cancer Screening and Cervical Cancer Prevention are also available. Information on cervical cancer in children is available in the PDQ summary on Unusual Cancers of Childhood.

Note: Estimated new cases and deaths from cervical (uterine cervix) cancer in the United States in 2008:[1]

• New cases: 11,070.
• Deaths: 3,870.

The prognosis for patients with cervical cancer is markedly affected by the extent of disease at the time of diagnosis. Because a vast majority (>90%) of these cases can and should be detected early through the use of the Pap smear,[2] the current death rate is far higher than it should be and reflects that, even today, Pap smears are not done on approximately 33% of eligible women.

Among the major factors that influence prognosis are stage, volume and grade of tumor, histologic type, lymphatic spread, and vascular invasion. In a large surgicopathologic staging study of patients with clinical stage IB disease reported by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG), the factors that predicted most prominently for lymph node metastases and a decrease in disease-free survival were capillary-lymphatic space involvement by tumor, increasing tumor size, and increasing depth of stromal invasion, with the latter being most important and reproducible.[3,4] In a study of 1,028 patients treated with radical surgery, survival rates correlated more consistently with tumor volume (as determined by precise volumetry of the tumor) than clinical or histologic stage.[5]

A multivariate analysis of prognostic variables in 626 patients with locally advanced disease (primarily stages II, III, and IV) studied by the GOG revealed that periaortic and pelvic lymph node status, tumor size, patient age, and performance status were significant for progression-free interval and survival. The study confirms the overriding importance of positive periaortic nodes and suggests further evaluation of these nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer. The status of the pelvic nodes was important only if the periaortic nodes were negative. This was also true for tumor size.

Bilateral disease and clinical stage were also significant for survival.[6] In a large series of cervical cancer patients treated by radiation therapy, the incidence of distant metastases (most frequently to lung, abdominal cavity, liver, and gastrointestinal tract) was shown to increase as the stage of disease increased, from 3% in stage IA to 75% in stage IVA. A multivariate analysis of factors influencing the incidence of distant metastases showed stage, endometrial extension of tumor, and pelvic tumor control to be significant indicators of distant dissemination.[7]

Whether adenocarcinoma of the cervix carries a significantly worse prognosis than squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix remains controversial.[8] Reports conflict about the effect of adenosquamous cell type on outcome.[9,10] One report showed that approximately 25% of apparent squamous tumors have demonstrable mucin production and behave more aggressively than their pure squamous counterparts, suggesting that any adenomatous differentiation may confer a negative prognosis.[11] The decreased survival is mainly the result of more advanced stage and nodal involvement rather than cell type as an independent variable. Women with human immunodeficiency virus have more aggressive and advanced disease and a poorer prognosis.[12] A study of patients with known invasive squamous carcinoma of the cervix found that overexpression of the C-myc oncogene was associated with a poorer prognosis.[13] The number of cells in S phase may also have prognostic significance in early cervical carcinoma.[14]

Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer

Molecular techniques for the identification of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA are highly sensitive and specific. More than 6 million women in the United States are estimated to have HPV infection, and proper interpretation of these data is important. Epidemiologic studies convincingly demonstrate that the major risk factor for development of preinvasive or invasive carcinoma of the cervix is HPV infection, which far outweighs other known risk factors such as high parity, increasing number of sexual partners, young age at first intercourse, low socioeconomic status, and positive smoking history.[15,16] Some patients with HPV infection appear to be at minimal increased risk for development of cervical preinvasive and invasive malignancies, while others appear to be at significant risk and are candidates for intensive screening programs and/or early intervention.

HPV DNA tests are unlikely to separate patients with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions into those who do and those who do not need further evaluation. A study of 642 women found that 83% had one or more tumorigenic HPV types when cervical cytologic specimens were assayed by a sensitive (hybrid capture) technique.[17] The authors of the study and of an accompanying editorial concluded that using HPV DNA testing in this setting does not add sufficient information to justify its cost.[17,18] Whether HPV DNA testing will prove useful in patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance is being studied by the same group.[17] Patients with an abnormal cytology of a high-risk type (Bethesda classification) should be thoroughly evaluated with colposcopy and biopsy.

Other studies show patients with low-risk cytology and high-risk HPV infection with types 16, 18, and 31 are more likely to have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or microinvasive histopathology on biopsy.[16,19-21] One method has also shown that integration of HPV types 16 and 18 into the genome, leading to transcription of viral and cellular messages, may predict patients who are at greater risk for high-grade dysplasia and invasive cancer.[22] Studies suggest that acute infection with HPV types 16 and 18 conferred an 11- to 16.9-fold risk of rapid development of high-grade CIN, [16,23] but there are conflicting data requiring further evaluation before any recommendations may be made. Patients with low-risk cytology and low-risk HPV types have not been followed long enough to ascertain their risk. At present, studies are ongoing to determine how HPV typing can be used to help stratify women into follow-up and treatment groups. HPV typing may prove useful, particularly in patients with low-grade cytology or cytology of unclear abnormality. At present, how therapy and follow-up should be altered with low- versus high-risk HPV type has not been established.

References

1. American Cancer Society.: Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2008. Also available online. Last accessed October 1, 2008. 
   
   
2. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 262 (7): 931-4, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, et al.: Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 38 (3): 352-7, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Zaino RJ, Ward S, Delgado G, et al.: Histopathologic predictors of the behavior of surgically treated stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 69 (7): 1750-8, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Burghardt E, Baltzer J, Tulusan AH, et al.: Results of surgical treatment of 1028 cervical cancers studied with volumetry. Cancer 70 (3): 648-55, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Stehman FB, Bundy BN, DiSaia PJ, et al.: Carcinoma of the cervix treated with radiation therapy. I. A multi-variate analysis of prognostic variables in the Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer 67 (11): 2776-85, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Fagundes H, Perez CA, Grigsby PW, et al.: Distant metastases after irradiation alone in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 24 (2): 197-204, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Steren A, Nguyen HN, Averette HE, et al.: Radical hysterectomy for stage IB adenocarcinoma of the cervix: the University of Miami experience. Gynecol Oncol 48 (3): 355-9, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Gallup DG, Harper RH, Stock RJ: Poor prognosis in patients with adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 65 (3): 416-22, 1985.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Yazigi R, Sandstad J, Munoz AK, et al.: Adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix: prognosis in stage IB. Obstet Gynecol 75 (6): 1012-5, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Bethwaite P, Yeong ML, Holloway L, et al.: The prognosis of adenosquamous carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 99 (9): 745-50, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Maiman M, Fruchter RG, Guy L, et al.: Human immunodeficiency virus infection and invasive cervical carcinoma. Cancer 71 (2): 402-6, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Bourhis J, Le MG, Barrois M, et al.: Prognostic value of c-myc proto-oncogene overexpression in early invasive carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 8 (11): 1789-96, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Strang P, Eklund G, Stendahl U, et al.: S-phase rate as a predictor of early recurrences in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Anticancer Res 7 (4B): 807-10, 1987 Jul-Aug.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, et al.: Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (12): 958-64, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Brisson J, Morin C, Fortier M, et al.: Risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: differences between low- and high-grade lesions. Am J Epidemiol 140 (8): 700-10, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: baseline data from a randomized trial. The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (5): 397-402, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Follen M, Richards-Kortum R: Emerging technologies and cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (5): 363-5, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
19. Tabbara S, Saleh AD, Andersen WA, et al.: The Bethesda classification for squamous intraepithelial lesions: histologic, cytologic, and viral correlates. Obstet Gynecol 79 (3): 338-46, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
20. Cuzick J, Terry G, Ho L, et al.: Human papillomavirus type 16 in cervical smears as predictor of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [corrected] Lancet 339 (8799): 959-60, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
21. Richart RM, Wright TC Jr: Controversies in the management of low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 71 (4 Suppl): 1413-21, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
22. Klaes R, Woerner SM, Ridder R, et al.: Detection of high-risk cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer by amplification of transcripts derived from integrated papillomavirus oncogenes. Cancer Res 59 (24): 6132-6, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
23. Koutsky LA, Holmes KK, Critchlow CW, et al.: A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med 327 (18): 1272-8, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Cellular Classification

Squamous cell (epidermoid) carcinoma comprises approximately 90%, and adenocarcinoma comprises approximately 10% of cervical cancers. Adenosquamous and small cell carcinomas are relatively rare. Primary sarcomas of the cervix have been described occasionally, and malignant lymphomas of the cervix, primary and secondary, have also been reported.

Back to Top

Stage Information

Cervical carcinoma has its origins at the squamous-columnar junction whether in the endocervical canal or on the portio of the cervix. The precursor lesion is dysplasia or carcinoma in situ (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]), which can subsequently become invasive cancer. This process can be quite slow. Longitudinal studies have shown that in untreated patients with in situ cervical cancer, 30% to 70% will develop invasive carcinoma over a period of 10 to 12 years. However, in about 10% of patients, lesions can progress from in situ to invasive in a period of less than 1 year. As it becomes invasive, the tumor breaks through the basement membrane and invades the cervical stroma. Extension of the tumor in the cervix may ultimately manifest as ulceration, exophytic tumor, or extensive infiltration of underlying tissue including bladder or rectum.

In addition to local invasion, carcinoma of the cervix can spread via the regional lymphatics or bloodstream. Tumor dissemination is generally a function of the extent and invasiveness of the local lesion. While cancer of the cervix generally progresses in an orderly manner, occasionally a small tumor with distant metastasis is seen. For this reason, patients must be carefully evaluated for metastatic disease.

Stages are defined by the Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d’Obstetrique (FIGO) or the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s (AJCC) TNM classification.[1-3]

The definitions of the T categories correspond to the several stages accepted by FIGO.

TNM Categories/FIGO Stages

Primary tumor (T)

• TX: Primary tumor cannot be assessed
• T0: No evidence of primary tumor
• Tis/0: Carcinoma in situ
• T1/I: Cervical carcinoma confined to uterus (extension to corpus should be disregarded)
  • T1a/IA: Invasive carcinoma diagnosed only by microscopy. All macroscopically visible lesions—even with superficial invasion—are T1b/IB. Stromal invasion with a maximum depth of 5 mm measured from the base of the epithelium and a horizontal spread of 7 mm or less. Vascular space involvement, venous or lymphatic, does not affect classification
  • T1a1/Ia1: Measured stromal invasion 3 mm or less in depth and 7 mm or less in horizontal spread
  • T1a2/IA2: Measured stromal invasion 3 mm or more and 5 mm or less with a horizontal spread of 7 mm or less
  • T1b/IB: Clinically visible lesion confined to the cervix or microscopic lesion larger than T1a/IA2
  • T1b1/IB1: Clinically visible lesion 4 cm or smaller in greatest dimension
  • T1b2/IB2: Clinically visible lesion 4 cm or larger in dimension
• T2/II: Cervical carcinoma invades beyond the uterus but not to the pelvic wall or to the lower third of the vagina
  • T2a/IIA: Tumor without parametrial involvement
  • T2b/IIB: Tumor with parametrial involvement
• T3/III: Tumor extends to the pelvic wall, and/or involves the lower third of the vagina, and/or causes hydronephrosis or nonfunctioning kidney
  • T3a/IIIA: Tumor involves the lower third of the vagina and does not extend to the pelvic wall
  • T3b/IIIB: Tumor extends to the pelvic wall and/or causes hydronephrosis or nonfunctioning kidney
• T4/IVA: Tumor invades mucosa of the bladder or rectum and/or extends beyond the true pelvis (bullous edema is not sufficient to classify a tumor as T4)

Regional lymph nodes (N)

• NX: Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
• N0: No regional lymph node metastasis
• N1: Regional lymph node metastasis

Distant metastasis (M)

• MX: Distant metastasis cannot be assessed
• M0: No distant metastasis
• M1/IVB: Distant metastasis

Stage 0

• Tis, N0, M0

Stage 0 is carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial carcinoma. There is no stromal invasion.

Stage I

• T1, N0, M0

Stage IA

• T1a, N0, M0

Stage IA1

• T1a1, N0, M0

Stage IA2

• T1a2, N0, M0

Stage IB

• T1b, N0, M0

Stage IB1

• T1b1, N0, M0

Stage IB2

• T1b2, N0, M0

Stage II

• T2, N0, M0

Stage IIA

• T2a, N0, M0

Stage IIB

T2b, N0, M0

Stage III

• T3, N0, M0

Stage IIIA

• T3a, N0, M0

Stage IIIB

• T1, N1, M0
• T2, N1, M0
• T3a, N1, M0
• T3b, any N, M0

Stage IVA

• T4, any N, M0

Stage IVB

• Any T, any N, M1

Stage I

Stage I is carcinoma strictly confined to the cervix; extension to the uterine corpus should be disregarded.

• Stage IA: Invasive cancer identified only microscopically. All gross lesions even with superficial invasion are stage IB cancers. Invasion is limited to measured stromal invasion with a maximum depth of 5 mm* and no wider than 7 mm. [Note: *The depth of invasion should be 5 mm or less taken from the base of the epithelium, either surface or glandular, from which it originates. Vascular space involvement, either venous or lymphatic, should not alter the staging.]
  • Stage IA1: Measured invasion of the stroma 3 mm or less in depth and 7 mm or less in diameter.
  • Stage IA2: Measured invasion of stroma more than 3 mm but 5 mm or less in depth and 7 mm or less in diameter.
• Stage IB: Clinical lesions confined to the cervix or preclinical lesions greater than stage IA.
  • Stage IB1: Clinical lesions 4 cm or less in size.
  • Stage IB2: Clinical lesions 4 cm or more in size.

Stage II

Stage II is carcinoma that extends beyond the cervix but has not extended onto the pelvic wall. The carcinoma involves the vagina but not as far as the lower third section.

• Stage IIA: No obvious parametrial involvement. Involvement of as much as the upper two thirds of the vagina.
• Stage IIB: Obvious parametrial involvement but not onto the pelvic sidewall.

Stage III

Stage III is carcinoma that has extended onto the pelvic sidewall and/or involves the lower third of the vagina. On rectal examination, there is no cancer-free space between the tumor and the pelvic sidewall. All cases with a hydronephrosis or nonfunctioning kidney should be included, unless they are known to be due to other causes.

• Stage IIIA: No extension onto the pelvic sidewall but involvement of the lower third of the vagina.
• Stage IIIB: Extension onto the pelvic sidewall or hydronephrosis or nonfunctioning kidney.

Stage IV

Stage IV is carcinoma that has extended beyond the true pelvis or has clinically involved the mucosa of the bladder and/or rectum.

• Stage IVA: Spread of the tumor onto adjacent pelvic organs.
• Stage IVB: Spread to distant organs.

References

1. Shepherd JH: Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103 (5): 405-6, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Creasman WT: New gynecologic cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol 58 (2): 157-8, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Cervix uteri. In: American Joint Committee on Cancer.: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2002, pp 259-65. 
   
   

Back to Top

Treatment Option Overview

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy,[1-6] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[7] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique (FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at the time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary in terms of the stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrate significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results, strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[1-8]

Pretreatment surgical staging is the most accurate method to determine extent of disease. Because there is little evidence to demonstrate overall improved survival with routine surgical staging, it usually should be performed only as part of a clinical trial. Pretreatment surgical staging in bulky but locally curable disease may be indicated in select cases when a nonsurgical search for metastatic disease is negative. If abnormal nodes are detected by computed tomography scan or lymphangiography, fine-needle aspiration should be negative before a surgical staging procedure is performed. Surgery and radiation therapy are equally effective for early-stage small-volume disease.[9] Younger patients may benefit from surgery in regard to ovarian preservation and avoidance of vaginal atrophy and stenosis.

Patterns of care studies clearly demonstrate the negative prognostic effect of increasing tumor volume. Treatment, therefore, may vary within each stage as currently defined by FIGO and will depend on tumor bulk and spread pattern.[10]

Therapy of patients with cancer of the cervical stump is effective, yielding results comparable to those seen in patients with an intact uterus.[11]

During pregnancy, no therapy is warranted for preinvasive lesions of the cervix, including carcinoma in situ, though expert colposcopy is recommended to exclude invasive cancer. Treatment of invasive cervical cancer during pregnancy depends on the stage of the cancer and gestational age at diagnosis. The traditional approach is to recommend immediate therapy appropriate for the disease stage when the cancer is diagnosed before fetal maturity and to delay therapy only if the cancer is detected in the final trimester.[12,13] However, other reports suggest that deliberate delay of treatment to allow improved fetal outcome may be a reasonable option for patients with stage IA and early IB cervical cancer.[14-16]

References

1. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Eifel PJ, Burke TW, Delclos L, et al.: Early stage I adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: treatment results in patients with tumors less than or equal to 4 cm in diameter. Gynecol Oncol 41 (3): 199-205, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Lanciano RM, Won M, Hanks GE: A reappraisal of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for cervical cancer. A study of patterns of care. Cancer 69 (2): 482-7, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Kovalic JJ, Grigsby PW, Perez CA, et al.: Cervical stump carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20 (5): 933-8, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Monk BJ, Montz FJ: Invasive cervical cancer complicating intrauterine pregnancy: treatment with radical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 80 (2): 199-203, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Hopkins MP, Morley GW: The prognosis and management of cervical cancer associated with pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 80 (1): 9-13, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Greer BE, Easterling TR, McLennan DA, et al.: Fetal and maternal considerations in the management of stage I-B cervical cancer during pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 34 (1): 61-5, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Duggan B, Muderspach LI, Roman LD, et al.: Cervical cancer in pregnancy: reporting on planned delay in therapy. Obstet Gynecol 82 (4 Pt 1): 598-602, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Sood AK, Sorosky JI, Krogman S, et al.: Surgical management of cervical cancer complicating pregnancy: a case-control study. Gynecol Oncol 63 (3): 294-8, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage 0 Cervical Cancer

Properly treated, tumor control of in situ cervical carcinoma should be nearly 100%. Either expert colposcopic-directed biopsy or cone biopsy is required to exclude invasive disease before therapy is undertaken. A correlation between cytology and colposcopic-directed biopsy is also necessary before local ablative therapy is done. Even so, unrecognized invasive disease treated with inadequate ablative therapy may be the most common cause of failure.[1] Failure to identify the disease, lack of correlation between the Pap smear and colposcopic findings, adenocarcinoma in situ, or extension of disease into the endocervical canal makes a laser, loop, or cold-knife conization mandatory. The choice of treatment will also depend on several patient factors including age, desire to preserve fertility, and medical condition. Most importantly, the extent of disease must be known.

In selected cases, the outpatient loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) may be an acceptable alternative to cold-knife conization. This quickly performed in-office procedure requires only local anesthesia and obviates the risks associated with general anesthesia for cold-knife conization.[2,3] However, controversy exists as to the adequacy of LEEP as a replacement for conization.[4] A trial comparing LEEP with cold-knife cone biopsy showed no difference in the likelihood of complete excision of dysplasia.[5] However, two case reports suggested that the use of LEEP in patients with occult invasive cancer led to an inability to accurately determine depth of invasion when a focus of the cancer was transected.[6]

Standard treatment options:

Methods to treat ectocervical lesions include:

1. LEEP.[7,8]
2. Laser therapy.[9]
3. Conization.
4. Cryotherapy.[10]

When the endocervical canal is involved, laser or cold-knife conization may be used for selected patients to preserve the uterus and avoid radiation therapy and/or more extensive surgery.

Total abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy is an accepted therapy for the postreproductive age group and is particularly indicated when the neoplastic process extends to the inner cone margin. For medically inoperable patients, a single intracavitary insertion with tandem and ovoids for 5,000 mg hours (80 Gy vaginal surface dose) may be used.[11]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage 0 cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Shumsky AG, Stuart GC, Nation J: Carcinoma of the cervix following conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 53 (1): 50-4, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Wright TC Jr, Gagnon S, Richart RM, et al.: Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol 79 (2): 173-8, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Naumann RW, Bell MC, Alvarez RD, et al.: LLETZ is an acceptable alternative to diagnostic cold-knife conization. Gynecol Oncol 55 (2): 224-8, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Widrich T, Kennedy AW, Myers TM, et al.: Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol 61 (3): 304-8, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Girardi F, Heydarfadai M, Koroschetz F, et al.: Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 55 (3 Pt 1): 368-70, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Eddy GL, Spiegel GW, Creasman WT: Adverse effect of electrosurgical loop excision on assignment of FIGO stage in cervical cancer: report of two cases. Gynecol Oncol 55 (2): 313-7, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Wright VC, Chapman W: Intraepithelial neoplasia of the lower female genital tract: etiology, investigation, and management. Semin Surg Oncol 8 (4): 180-90, 1992 Jul-Aug.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Bloss JD: The use of electrosurgical techniques in the management of premalignant diseases of the vulva, vagina, and cervix: an excisional rather than an ablative approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169 (5): 1081-5, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Tsukamoto N: Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with the carbon dioxide laser. Gynecol Oncol 21 (3): 331-6, 1985.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Benedet JL, Miller DM, Nickerson KG, et al.: The results of cryosurgical treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at one, five, and ten years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 157 (2): 268-73, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Grigsby PW, Perez CA: Radiotherapy alone for medically inoperable carcinoma of the cervix: stage IA and carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21 (2): 375-8, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage IA Cervical Cancer

Equivalent treatment options:

1. Total hysterectomy:[1] If the depth of invasion is less than 3 mm proven by cone biopsy with clear margins [2] and no vascular or lymphatic channel invasion is noted, the frequency of lymph node involvement is sufficiently low that lymph node dissection is not required. Oophorectomy is optional and should be deferred for younger women.



2. Conization: If the depth of invasion is less than 3 mm, no vascular or lymphatic channel invasion is noted, and the margins of the cone are negative, conization alone may be appropriate in patients wishing to preserve fertility.[1]



3. Radical hysterectomy: For patients with tumor invasion between 3 mm and 5 mm, radical hysterectomy with pelvic node dissection has been recommended because of a reported risk of lymph node metastasis of as much as 10%.[2] However, a study suggests that the rate of lymph node involvement in this group of patients may be much lower and questions whether conservative therapy might be adequate for patients believed to have no residual disease following conization.[3] Radical hysterectomy with node dissection may also be considered for patients where the depth of tumor invasion was uncertain because of invasive tumor at the cone margins.



4. Intracavitary radiation therapy alone: If the depth of invasion is less than 3 mm and no capillary lymphatic space invasion is noted, the frequency of lymph node involvement is sufficiently low that external-beam radiation therapy is not required. One or two insertions with tandem and ovoids for 6,500 mg to 8,000 mg hours (100 Gy–125 Gy vaginal surface dose) are recommended.[4] Radiation therapy should be reserved for women who are not surgical candidates.

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IA cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Sevin BU, Nadji M, Averette HE, et al.: Microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 70 (8): 2121-8, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Jones WB, Mercer GO, Lewis JL Jr, et al.: Early invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 51 (1): 26-32, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Creasman WT, Zaino RJ, Major FJ, et al.: Early invasive carcinoma of the cervix (3 to 5 mm invasion): risk factors and prognosis. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178 (1 Pt 1): 62-5, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Grigsby PW, Perez CA: Radiotherapy alone for medically inoperable carcinoma of the cervix: stage IA and carcinoma in situ. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21 (2): 375-8, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   

Back to Top

Stage IB Cervical Cancer

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Either radiation therapy or radical hysterectomy and bilateral lymph node dissection, by an experienced professional, results in a cure rates of 85% to 90% for patients with small volume disease. The choice of either treatment depends on patient factors and available local expertise. A randomized trial reported identical 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates when comparing radiation therapy to radical hysterectomy.[1] The size of the primary tumor is an important prognostic factor and should be carefully evaluated in choosing optimal therapy.[2] For adenocarcinomas that expand the cervix more than 3 cm, the primary treatment should be radiation therapy.[3]

After surgical staging, patients found to have small volume para-aortic nodal disease and controllable pelvic disease may be cured with pelvic and para-aortic radiation therapy.[4] The resection of macroscopically involved pelvic nodes may improve rates of local control with postoperative radiation therapy.[5] Treatment of patients with unresected periaortic nodes with extended-field radiation therapy leads to long-term disease control in those patients with low volume (<2 cm) nodal disease below L3.[6] A single study (RTOG-7920) showed a survival advantage in patients with tumors larger than 4 cm who received radiation therapy to para-aortic nodes without histologic evidence of disease.[7] Toxic effects were greater with para-aortic radiation therapy than with pelvic radiation therapy alone but were mostly confined to patients with prior abdominopelvic surgery.[7] Patients who underwent extraperitoneal lymph node sampling had fewer bowel complications than those who had transperitoneal lymph node sampling.[6,8,9] Patients with close vaginal margins (<0.5 cm) may also benefit from pelvic radiation therapy.[10]

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy,[11-16] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[17] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique (FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy, and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at the time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary somewhat in terms of the stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrate significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results, strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[11-18]

Standard treatment options:

1. Radiation therapy: External-beam pelvic radiation therapy combined with two or more intracavitary brachytherapy applications. Although low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, typically with 137-Cs, has been the traditional approach, the use of high-dose rate (HDR) therapy, typically with 192-Ir, is rapidly increasing. HDR brachytherapy provides the advantage of eliminating radiation exposure to medical personnel, a shorter treatment time, patient convenience, and outpatient management. In three randomized trials, HDR brachytherapy was comparable with LDR brachytherapy in terms of local-regional control and complication rates.[19-21][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]. The American Brachytherapy Society has published guidelines for the use of LDR and HDR brachytherapy as components of cervical cancer treatment.[22,23]



2. Radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy.



3. Postoperative total pelvic radiation therapy plus chemotherapy following radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy: Radiation in the range of 50 Gy administered for 5 weeks plus chemotherapy with cisplatin with or without fluorouracil (5-FU) should be considered in patients with positive pelvic nodes, positive surgical margins, and residual parametrial disease.[11-16]



4. Radiation therapy plus chemotherapy with cisplatin or cisplatin/5-FU for patients with bulky tumors.[11-16]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IB cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al.: Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350 (9077): 535-40, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al.: Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 69 (11): 2796-806, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Eifel PJ, Burke TW, Delclos L, et al.: Early stage I adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: treatment results in patients with tumors less than or equal to 4 cm in diameter. Gynecol Oncol 41 (3): 199-205, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Cunningham MJ, Dunton CJ, Corn B, et al.: Extended-field radiation therapy in early-stage cervical carcinoma: survival and complications. Gynecol Oncol 43 (1): 51-4, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Downey GO, Potish RA, Adcock LL, et al.: Pretreatment surgical staging in cervical carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy of pelvic lymph node resection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160 (5 Pt 1): 1055-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Vigliotti AP, Wen BC, Hussey DH, et al.: Extended field irradiation for carcinoma of the uterine cervix with positive periaortic nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (3): 501-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Rotman M, Pajak TF, Choi K, et al.: Prophylactic extended-field irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and IIA cervical carcinomas. Ten-year treatment results of RTOG 79-20. JAMA 274 (5): 387-93, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Weiser EB, Bundy BN, Hoskins WJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal selective paraaortic lymphadenectomy in the pretreatment surgical staging of advanced cervical carcinoma (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol 33 (3): 283-9, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Fine BA, Hempling RE, Piver MS, et al.: Severe radiation morbidity in carcinoma of the cervix: impact of pretherapy surgical staging and previous surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31 (4): 717-23, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Estape RE, Angioli R, Madrigal M, et al.: Close vaginal margins as a prognostic factor after radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 68 (3): 229-32, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
19. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al.: Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28 (2): 335-41, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
20. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, et al.: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. Cancer 94 (1): 117-24, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
21. Lertsanguansinchai P, Lertbutsayanukul C, Shotelersuk K, et al.: Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59 (5): 1424-31, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
22. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52 (1): 33-48, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
23. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (1): 201-11, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage IIA Cervical Cancer

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

Either radiation therapy or radical hysterectomy, by an experienced professional, results in cure rates of 75% to 80%. The selection of either option depends on patient factors and local expertise. A randomized trial reported identical 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates when radiation therapy was compared to radical hysterectomy.[1] The size of the primary tumor is an important prognostic factor and should be carefully evaluated in choosing optimal therapy.[2] For patients with bulky (>6 cm) endocervical squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas, treatment with high-dose radiation therapy will achieve local control and survival rates comparable to treatment with radiation therapy plus hysterectomy. Surgery after radiation therapy may be indicated for some patients with tumors confined to the cervix that respond incompletely to radiation therapy or in whom vaginal anatomy precludes optimal brachytherapy.[3]

After surgical staging, patients found to have small volume para-aortic nodal disease and controllable pelvic disease may be cured with pelvic and para-aortic radiation therapy.[4] The resection of macroscopically involved pelvic nodes may improve rates of local control with postoperative radiation therapy.[5] Treatment of patients with unresected periaortic nodes with extended-field radiation therapy leads to long-term disease control in those patients with low volume (<2 cm) nodal disease below L3.[6] A single study (RTOG-7920) showed a survival advantage in patients who received radiation therapy to para-aortic nodes without histologic evidence of disease.[7] Toxic effects were greater with para-aortic radiation than with pelvic radiation alone but were mostly confined to patients with prior abdominopelvic surgery.[7] Patients who underwent extraperitoneal lymph node sampling had fewer bowel complications than those who had transperitoneal lymph node sampling.[6,8,9] Patients with close vaginal margins (<0.5 cm) after radical surgery may also benefit from pelvic radiation therapy.[10]

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy,[11-16] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[17] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique (FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at the time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary somewhat in terms of stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrate significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results,strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[11-18]

Standard treatment options:

1. Radiation therapy: Intracavitary radiation therapy combined with external-beam pelvic radiation therapy. Although low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, typically with 137-Cs, has been the traditional approach, the use of high-dose rate (HDR) therapy, typically with 192-Ir, is rapidly increasing. HDR brachytherapy provides the advantage of eliminating radiation exposure to medical personnel, a shorter treatment time, patient convenience, and outpatient management. In three randomized trials, HDR brachytherapy was comparable to LDR brachytherapy in terms of local-regional control and complication rates.[19-21][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]. The American Brachytherapy Society has published guidelines for the use of LDR and HDR brachytherapy as components of cervical cancer treatment.[22,23] Radiation therapy to para-aortic nodes may be indicated in primary tumors 4 cm or larger.



2. Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.



3. Postoperative total pelvic radiation therapy plus chemotherapy following radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy: Radiation therapy in the range of 50 Gy administered for 5 weeks plus chemotherapy with cisplatin with or without fluorouracil (5-FU) should be considered in patients with positive pelvic nodes, positive surgical margins, and residual parametrial disease.[11-16]



4. Radiation therapy plus chemotherapy with cisplatin or cisplatin/5-FU for patients with bulky tumors.[11-16]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IIA cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al.: Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet 350 (9077): 535-40, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al.: Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 69 (11): 2796-806, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Thoms WW Jr, Eifel PJ, Smith TL, et al.: Bulky endocervical carcinoma: a 23-year experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (3): 491-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Cunningham MJ, Dunton CJ, Corn B, et al.: Extended-field radiation therapy in early-stage cervical carcinoma: survival and complications. Gynecol Oncol 43 (1): 51-4, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Downey GO, Potish RA, Adcock LL, et al.: Pretreatment surgical staging in cervical carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy of pelvic lymph node resection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160 (5 Pt 1): 1055-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Vigliotti AP, Wen BC, Hussey DH, et al.: Extended field irradiation for carcinoma of the uterine cervix with positive periaortic nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (3): 501-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Rotman M, Pajak TF, Choi K, et al.: Prophylactic extended-field irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and IIA cervical carcinomas. Ten-year treatment results of RTOG 79-20. JAMA 274 (5): 387-93, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Weiser EB, Bundy BN, Hoskins WJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal selective paraaortic lymphadenectomy in the pretreatment surgical staging of advanced cervical carcinoma (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol 33 (3): 283-9, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Fine BA, Hempling RE, Piver MS, et al.: Severe radiation morbidity in carcinoma of the cervix: impact of pretherapy surgical staging and previous surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31 (4): 717-23, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Estape RE, Angioli R, Madrigal M, et al.: Close vaginal margins as a prognostic factor after radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 68 (3): 229-32, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
19. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al.: Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28 (2): 335-41, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
20. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, et al.: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. Cancer 94 (1): 117-24, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
21. Lertsanguansinchai P, Lertbutsayanukul C, Shotelersuk K, et al.: Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59 (5): 1424-31, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
22. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52 (1): 33-48, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
23. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (1): 201-11, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage IIB Cervical Cancer

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

The size of the primary tumor is an important prognostic factor and should be carefully evaluated in choosing optimal therapy.[1] Survival and local control are better with unilateral rather than bilateral parametrial involvement.[2] Patients who are surgically staged as part of a clinical trial and are found to have small volume para-aortic nodal disease and controllable pelvic disease may be cured with pelvic and para-aortic radiation therapy.[3] If postoperative external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is planned following surgery, extraperitoneal lymph node sampling is associated with fewer radiation-induced complications than a transperitoneal approach.[4] The resection of macroscopically involved pelvic nodes may improve rates of local control with postoperative radiation therapy.[5] Treatment of patients with unresected periaortic nodes with extended-field radiation therapy leads to long-term disease control in those patients with low volume (<2 cm) nodal disease below L3.[6] A single study (RTOG-7920) showed a survival advantage in patients who received radiation therapy to para-aortic nodes without histologic evidence of disease.[7] Toxic effects are greater with para-aortic radiation than with pelvic radiation alone but were mostly confined to patients with prior abdominopelvic surgery.[7] Patients who underwent extraperitoneal lymph node sampling had fewer bowel complications than those who had transperitoneal lymph node sampling.[4,6,8]

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy, [9-14] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[15] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique (FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy, and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary somewhat in terms of the stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrated significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results, strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[9-16]

Standard treatment options:

• Radiation therapy plus chemotherapy: Intracavitary radiation therapy and EBRT to the pelvis combined with cisplatin or cisplatin/fluorouracil.[9-14]

Although low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, typically with 137-Cs, has been the traditional approach, the use of high-dose rate (HDR) therapy, typically with 192-Ir, is rapidly increasing. HDR brachytherapy provides the advantage of eliminating radiation exposure to medical personnel, a shorter treatment time, patient convenience, and outpatient management. In three randomized trials, HDR brachytherapy was comparable with LDR brachytherapy in terms of local-regional control and complication rates.[17-19][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]. The American Brachytherapy Society has published guidelines for the use of LDR and HDR brachytherapy as a component of cervical cancer treatment.[20,21]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IIB cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al.: Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 69 (11): 2796-806, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Lanciano RM, Won M, Hanks GE: A reappraisal of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for cervical cancer. A study of patterns of care. Cancer 69 (2): 482-7, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Cunningham MJ, Dunton CJ, Corn B, et al.: Extended-field radiation therapy in early-stage cervical carcinoma: survival and complications. Gynecol Oncol 43 (1): 51-4, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Weiser EB, Bundy BN, Hoskins WJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal selective paraaortic lymphadenectomy in the pretreatment surgical staging of advanced cervical carcinoma (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol 33 (3): 283-9, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Downey GO, Potish RA, Adcock LL, et al.: Pretreatment surgical staging in cervical carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy of pelvic lymph node resection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160 (5 Pt 1): 1055-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Vigliotti AP, Wen BC, Hussey DH, et al.: Extended field irradiation for carcinoma of the uterine cervix with positive periaortic nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (3): 501-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Rotman M, Pajak TF, Choi K, et al.: Prophylactic extended-field irradiation of para-aortic lymph nodes in stages IIB and bulky IB and IIA cervical carcinomas. Ten-year treatment results of RTOG 79-20. JAMA 274 (5): 387-93, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Fine BA, Hempling RE, Piver MS, et al.: Severe radiation morbidity in carcinoma of the cervix: impact of pretherapy surgical staging and previous surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31 (4): 717-23, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al.: Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28 (2): 335-41, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, et al.: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. Cancer 94 (1): 117-24, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
19. Lertsanguansinchai P, Lertbutsayanukul C, Shotelersuk K, et al.: Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59 (5): 1424-31, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
20. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52 (1): 33-48, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
21. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (1): 201-11, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage III Cervical Cancer

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

The size of the primary tumor is an important prognostic factor and should be carefully evaluated in choosing optimal therapy.[1] Patterns-of-care studies in stage IIIA/IIIB patients indicate that survival is dependent on the extent of the disease, with unilateral pelvic wall involvement predicting a better outcome than bilateral involvement, which in turn predicts a better outcome than involvement of the lower third of the vaginal wall.[2] These studies also reveal a progressive increase in local control and survival paralleling a progressive increase in paracentral (point A) dose and use of intracavitary treatment. The highest rate of central control was seen with paracentral (point A) doses of more than 85 Gy.[3]

Patients who are surgically staged as part of a clinical trial and are found to have small volume para-aortic nodal disease and controllable pelvic disease may be cured with external-beam pelvic and para-aortic radiation therapy. If postoperative external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is planned following surgery, extraperitoneal lymph node sampling is associated with fewer radiation-induced complications than a transperitoneal approach.[4] The resection of macroscopically involved pelvic nodes may improve rates of local control with postoperative radiation therapy.[5] Treatment of patients with unresected periaortic nodes with extended-field radiation therapy leads to long-term disease control in those patients with low volume (<2 cm) nodal disease below L3. Patients who underwent extraperitoneal lymph node sampling had fewer bowel complications than those who had transperitoneal lymph node sampling.[6]

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy, [7-12] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[13] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique (FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary somewhat in terms of stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrate significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results, strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[7-14]

Standard treatment options:

• Radiation therapy plus chemotherapy: Intracavitary radiation and EBRT to the pelvis combined with cisplatin or cisplatin/fluorouracil.[7-12]

Although low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, typically with 137-Cs, has been the traditional approach, the use of high-dose rate (HDR) therapy, typically with 192-Ir, is rapidly increasing. HDR brachytherapy provides the advantage of eliminating radiation exposure to medical personnel, a shorter treatment time, patient convenience, and outpatient management. In three randomized trials, HDR brachytherapy was comparable with LDR brachytherapy in terms of local-regional control and complication rates.[15-17][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]. The American Brachytherapy Society has published guidelines for the use of LDR and HDR brachytherapy as a component of cervical cancer treatment.[18,19]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage III cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al.: Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 69 (11): 2796-806, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Lanciano RM, Won M, Hanks GE: A reappraisal of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for cervical cancer. A study of patterns of care. Cancer 69 (2): 482-7, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Lanciano RM, Martz K, Coia LR, et al.: Tumor and treatment factors improving outcome in stage III-B cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 20 (1): 95-100, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Weiser EB, Bundy BN, Hoskins WJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal selective paraaortic lymphadenectomy in the pretreatment surgical staging of advanced cervical carcinoma (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Gynecol Oncol 33 (3): 283-9, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Downey GO, Potish RA, Adcock LL, et al.: Pretreatment surgical staging in cervical carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy of pelvic lymph node resection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160 (5 Pt 1): 1055-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Vigliotti AP, Wen BC, Hussey DH, et al.: Extended field irradiation for carcinoma of the uterine cervix with positive periaortic nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 (3): 501-9, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
15. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al.: Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28 (2): 335-41, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
16. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, et al.: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. Cancer 94 (1): 117-24, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
17. Lertsanguansinchai P, Lertbutsayanukul C, Shotelersuk K, et al.: Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59 (5): 1424-31, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
18. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52 (1): 33-48, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
19. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (1): 201-11, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage IVA Cervical Cancer

Note: Some citations in the text of this section are followed by a level of evidence. The PDQ editorial boards use a formal ranking system to help the reader judge the strength of evidence linked to the reported results of a therapeutic strategy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Levels of Evidence for more information.)

The size of the primary tumor is an important prognostic factor and should be carefully evaluated in choosing optimal therapy.[1] After surgical staging, patients found to have small volume para-aortic nodal disease and controllable pelvic disease may be cured with pelvic and para-aortic radiation therapy.

Five randomized phase III trials have shown an overall survival advantage for cisplatin-based therapy given concurrently with radiation therapy, [2-7] while one trial examining this regimen demonstrated no benefit.[8] The patient populations in these studies included women with Federation Internationale de Gynecologie et d'Obstetrique ((FIGO) stages IB2 to IVA cervical cancer treated with primary radiation therapy and women with FIGO stages I to IIA disease found to have poor prognostic factors (metastatic disease in pelvic lymph nodes, parametrial disease, or positive surgical margins) at time of primary surgery. Although the positive trials vary somewhat in terms of stage of disease, dose of radiation, and schedule of cisplatin and radiation, the trials demonstrate significant survival benefit for this combined approach. The risk of death from cervical cancer was decreased by 30% to 50% with the use of concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Based on these results, strong consideration should be given to the incorporation of concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy with radiation therapy in women who require radiation therapy for treatment of cervical cancer.[2-9]

Standard treatment options:

• Radiation therapy plus chemotherapy: Intracavitary radiation therapy and external-beam pelvic radiation therapy combined with cisplatin or cisplatin/fluorouracil.[2-7]

Although low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, typically with 137-Cs, has been the traditional approach, the use of high-dose rate (HDR) therapy, typically with 192-Ir, is rapidly increasing. HDR brachytherapy provides the advantage of eliminating radiation exposure to medical personnel, a shorter treatment time, patient convenience, and outpatient management. In three randomized trials, HDR brachytherapy was comparable with LDR brachytherapy in terms of local-regional control and complication rates.[10-12][Level of evidence: 1iiDii]. The American Brachytherapy Society has published guidelines for the use of LDR and HDR brachytherapy as a component of cervical cancer treatment.[13,14]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IVA cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al.: Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 69 (11): 2796-806, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al.: Randomized comparison of fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stage IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes: a Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (5): 1339-48, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al.: Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1137-43, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al.: Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1144-53, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al.: Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1154-61, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Peters WA 3rd, Liu PY, Barrett RJ 2nd, et al.: Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 18 (8): 1606-13, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Thomas GM: Improved treatment for cervical cancer--concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. N Engl J Med 340 (15): 1198-200, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, et al.: Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 966-72, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Rose PG, Bundy BN: Chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer: does it help? J Clin Oncol 20 (4): 891-3, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Patel FD, Sharma SC, Negi PS, et al.: Low dose rate vs. high dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28 (2): 335-41, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Hareyama M, Sakata K, Oouchi A, et al.: High-dose-rate versus low-dose-rate intracavitary therapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a randomized trial. Cancer 94 (1): 117-24, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Lertsanguansinchai P, Lertbutsayanukul C, Shotelersuk K, et al.: Phase III randomized trial comparing LDR and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59 (5): 1424-31, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
13. Nag S, Chao C, Erickson B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for low-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52 (1): 33-48, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
14. Nag S, Erickson B, Thomadsen B, et al.: The American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (1): 201-11, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Stage IVB Cervical Cancer

No standard chemotherapy treatment is available for patients with stage IVB cervical cancer that provides substantial palliation. These patients are appropriate candidates for clinical trials testing single agents or combination chemotherapy employing agents listed below or new anticancer treatments in phase I and II clinical trials.[1]

Treatment options:

1. Radiation therapy may be used to palliate central disease or distant metastases.



2. Chemotherapy. Tested drugs include:
   • Cisplatin (15%–25% response rate).[1,2]
   • Ifosfamide (31% response rate). [3]
   • Paclitaxel (17% response rate).[4-6]
   • Ifosfamide-cisplatin.[7,8]
   • Irinotecan (21% response rate in patients previously treated with chemotherapy).[9]
   • Paclitaxel/cisplatin (46% response rate).[10]
   • Cisplatin/gemcitabine (41% response rate).[11]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with stage IVB cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Alberts DS, Kronmal R, Baker LH, et al.: Phase II randomized trial of cisplatin chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the cervix: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 5 (11): 1791-5, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, DiSaia PJ, et al.: A randomized comparison of a rapid versus prolonged (24 hr) infusion of cisplatin in therapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 32 (2): 198-202, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
3. Coleman RE, Harper PG, Gallagher C, et al.: A phase II study of ifosfamide in advanced and relapsed carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 18 (3): 280-3, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Kudelka AP, Winn R, Edwards CL, et al.: Activity of paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent squamous cell cancer of the cervix. Clin Cancer Res 2 (8): 1285-8, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Thigpen T, Vance RB, Khansur T: The platinum compounds and paclitaxel in the management of carcinomas of the endometrium and uterine cervix. Semin Oncol 22 (5 Suppl 12): 67-75, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. McGuire WP, Blessing JA, Moore D, et al.: Paclitaxel has moderate activity in squamous cervix cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 14 (3): 792-5, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Buxton EJ, Meanwell CA, Hilton C, et al.: Combination bleomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy in cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 81 (5): 359-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Omura GA, Blessing JA, Vaccarello L, et al.: Randomized trial of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus mitolactol versus cisplatin plus ifosfamide in advanced squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 15 (1): 165-71, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. Verschraegen CF, Levy T, Kudelka AP, et al.: Phase II study of irinotecan in prior chemotherapy-treated squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 15 (2): 625-31, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Rose PG, Blessing JA, Gershenson DM, et al.: Paclitaxel and cisplatin as first-line therapy in recurrent or advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (9): 2676-80, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Burnett AF, Roman LD, Garcia AA, et al.: A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced, persistent, or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 76 (1): 63-6, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Recurrent Cervical Cancer

No standard treatment is available for patients with recurrent cervical cancer that has spread beyond the confines of a radiation or surgical field. For locally recurrent disease, pelvic exenteration can lead to a 5-year survival rate of 32% to 62% in selected patients.[1,2] These patients are appropriate candidates for clinical trials testing drug combinations or new anticancer agents.

Treatment options:

1. For recurrence in the pelvis following radical surgery, radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (fluorouracil with or without mitomycin) may cure 40% to 50% of patients.[3]



2. Chemotherapy can be used for palliation. Tested drugs include:
   • Cisplatin (15%–25% response rate).[4]
   • Ifosfamide (15%–30% response rate).[5,6]
   • Ifosfamide-cisplatin.[7,8]
   • Paclitaxel (17% response rate).[9]
   • Irinotecan (21% response rate in patients previously treated with chemotherapy).[10]
   • Paclitaxel/cisplatin (46% response rate).[11]
   • Cisplatin/gemcitabine (41% response rate).[12]

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with recurrent cervical cancer. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References

1. Alberts DS, Kronmal R, Baker LH, et al.: Phase II randomized trial of cisplatin chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the cervix: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 5 (11): 1791-5, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
2. Tumors of the cervix. In: Morrow CP, Curtin JP: Synopsis of Gynecologic Oncology. 5th ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1998, pp 107-151. 
   
   
3. Thomas GM, Dembo AJ, Black B, et al.: Concurrent radiation and chemotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix recurrent after radical surgery. Gynecol Oncol 27 (3): 254-63, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
4. Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, DiSaia PJ, et al.: A randomized comparison of a rapid versus prolonged (24 hr) infusion of cisplatin in therapy of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 32 (2): 198-202, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
5. Coleman RE, Harper PG, Gallagher C, et al.: A phase II study of ifosfamide in advanced and relapsed carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 18 (3): 280-3, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
6. Sutton GP, Blessing JA, McGuire WP, et al.: Phase II trial of ifosfamide and mesna in patients with advanced or recurrent squamous carcinoma of the cervix who had never received chemotherapy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168 (3 Pt 1): 805-7, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
7. Buxton EJ, Meanwell CA, Hilton C, et al.: Combination bleomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin chemotherapy in cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 81 (5): 359-61, 1989.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
8. Omura GA, Blessing JA, Vaccarello L, et al.: Randomized trial of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus mitolactol versus cisplatin plus ifosfamide in advanced squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 15 (1): 165-71, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
9. McGuire WP, Blessing JA, Moore D, et al.: Paclitaxel has moderate activity in squamous cervix cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 14 (3): 792-5, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]
   
   
10. Verschraegen CF, Levy T, Kudelka AP, et al.: Phase II study of irinotecan in prior chemotherapy-treated squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 15 (2): 625-31, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
11. Rose PG, Blessing JA, Gershenson DM, et al.: Paclitaxel and cisplatin as first-line therapy in recurrent or advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 17 (9): 2676-80, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    
12. Burnett AF, Roman LD, Garcia AA, et al.: A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced, persistent, or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 76 (1): 63-6, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]
    
    

Back to Top

Get More Information From NCI

Call 1-800-4-CANCER

For more information, U.S. residents may call the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237) Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Deaf and hard-of-hearing callers with TTY equipment may call 1-800-332-8615. The call is free and a trained Cancer Information Specialist is available to answer your questions.

Chat online

The NCI's LiveHelp® online chat service provides Internet users with the ability to chat online with an Information Specialist. The service is available from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Information Specialists can help Internet users find information on NCI Web sites and answer questions about cancer.

Write to us

For more information from the NCI, please write to this address:

NCI Public Inquiries Office

Suite 3036A

6116 Executive Boulevard, MSC8322

Bethesda, MD 20892-8322

Search the NCI Web site

The NCI Web site provides online access to information on cancer, clinical trials, and other Web sites and organizations that offer support and resources for cancer patients and their families. For a quick search, use our “Best Bets” search box in the upper right hand corner of each Web page. The results that are most closely related to your search term will be listed as Best Bets at the top of the list of search results.

There are also many other places to get materials and information about cancer treatment and services. Hospitals in your area may have information about local and regional agencies that have information on finances, getting to and from treatment, receiving care at home, and dealing with problems related to cancer treatment.

Find Publications

The NCI has booklets and other materials for patients, health professionals, and the public. These publications discuss types of cancer, methods of cancer treatment, coping with cancer, and clinical trials. Some publications provide information on tests for cancer, cancer causes and prevention, cancer statistics, and NCI research activities. NCI materials on these and other topics may be ordered online or printed directly from the NCI Publications Locator. These materials can also be ordered by telephone from the Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237), TTY at 1-800-332-8615.

Back to Top

Changes to This Summary (05/16/2008)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

Editorial changes were made to this summary.

Back to Top

More Information

About PDQ

• PDQ® - NCI's Comprehensive Cancer Database.

  Full description of the NCI PDQ database.

Additional PDQ Summaries

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Adult Treatment

  Treatment options for adult cancers.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Pediatric Treatment

  Treatment options for childhood cancers.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Supportive and Palliative Care

  Side effects of cancer treatment, management of cancer-related complications and pain, and psychosocial concerns.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Screening/Detection (Testing for Cancer)

  Tests or procedures that detect specific types of cancer.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Prevention

  Risk factors and methods to increase chances of preventing specific types of cancer.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Genetics

  Genetics of specific cancers and inherited cancer syndromes, and ethical, legal, and social concerns.

• PDQ® Cancer Information Summaries: Complementary and Alternative Medicine

  Information about complementary and alternative forms of treatment for patients with cancer.

Important:

This information is intended mainly for use by doctors and other health care professionals. If you have questions about this topic, you can ask your doctor, or call the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).

Back to Top