Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cervical cancer staging: A review of gaps and questions that remain
  1. Gloria Salvo1,
  2. Diego Odetto2,
  3. Rene Pareja3,
  4. Michael Frumovitz1 and
  5. Pedro T Ramirez1
  1. 1 Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2 Gynecology Oncology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  3. 3 Gynecologic Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gloria Salvo, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; glorietasalvo{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Recently the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for cervical cancer was published. In this most recent classification, imaging modalities and pathologic information have been added as tools to determine the final stage of the disease. Although there are many merits to this new staging for cervical cancer, including more detailed categorization of early-stage disease as well as information on nodal distribution, the classification falls short in clarifying areas of controversy in the staging system. Many unanswered questions remain and, as such, a number of gaps lead to further debate in the interpretation of relevant clinical data. Factors such as measurement of tumor size, definition of parametrial involvement, ovarian metastases, lower uterine segment extension, lymph node metastasis, and imaging modalities are explored in this review. The goal is to focus on items that deserve further discussion and clarification in the most recent FIGO staging for cervical cancer.

  • cervical cancer
  • uterine cervical neoplasms
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @frumovitz, @pedroramirezMD

  • Contributors All authors contributed to writing this manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.