Accuracy of pre-operative tumor size assessment compared to final pathology and frequency of adjuvant treatment in patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB2 cervical cancer.

Objective: The primary aim of our study was to compare tumor size assessment by pre-operative evaluation (physical examination and/or imaging) with tumor size on final pathology. As a secondary outcome, we evaluated the rate of adjuvant treatment in patients who underwent radical hysterectomy whose tumor size was ≥3 cm on final pathology.

Methods: Patient details were collected from three separate databases: the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Radical Hysterectomy Database, the SUCCOR Study Group Database, and the Multi-institutional Database LATAM (encompassing Latin America and Europe). Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage IB2 cervical cancer on pre-operative evaluation (physical examination or imaging) who underwent radical hysterectomy with a therapeutic intent were included. Any histological subtype, any tumor grade, and pre-operative evaluation with clinical evaluation and/or imaging (ultrasound, MRI, CT, or PET/CT) was considered.

Results: A total of 675 patients met eligibility criteria (SUCCOR=350, LATAM=250, MD Anderson=75). The median age was 46 years (range 22-82) and the median body mass index was 25.6 kg/m² (range 15.1-68). The most common histologic subtype was squamous carcinoma (68%, n=456), and the majority had either grade 2 or 3 disease . Overall pre-operative imaging modalities used were MRI (52%, n=352), ultrasound (21%, n=140), CT (5%, n=32), and PET/CT (1%, n=10). Most patients underwent open surgery (60%, n=404). In total, 113 (17%) patients had lymph node involvement and 58 (9%) patients had parametrial involvement. A total of 343 (51%) patients received adjuvant therapy, with the majority of those receiving chemoradiation (54%, n=186) followed by radiation alone (44%, n=152). The results of the Bland-Altman analysis showed that pre-operative physical examination, MRI, ultrasound, and CT all overestimated tumor size, but only the bias found for physical examination (p<0.0001) and MRI (p=0.0102) were statistically significant. However, in patients who underwent a pre-operative MRI, a total of 293 (83.2%) patients with tumor size 2-4 cm by MRI had concordance with tumor measurement on final pathology. Similarly, when evaluating accuracy of physical examination with tumor size by MRI, we found that there was agreement in 319 (91.1%) patients. Similarly, we found that concordance of physical examination with tumor size on final pathology was 80.6%. There were 340 (50%) patients who had tumor size on pathology ≥3 cm, and 207 (61%) of these received adjuvant therapy. Additionally, there was a significantly higher incidence of positive lymph nodes with increasing tumor size on pathology (2-2.99 cm, 13% (29/222) vs 3-4 cm, 21% (66/316), p=0.022).

Conclusions: Our study showed that there is a high concordance between tumor size assessment by physical examination and MRI, as well as estimates of measurement by MRI and final pathology. In addition, we noted that the majority of patients with FIGO 2018 stage IB2 received adjuvant therapy after radical hysterectomy.