Clinically significant discrepancy between clinical and pathologic stage of early-operable cervical cancer.

Abstract

5526 Background: The cornerstone of the management of cervical cancer (CC) traditionally relies on clinical examination assessment (CE) of tumor size (TS) and local extension of disease. Previous reports demonstrate poor accuracy of CE, with the most common discrepancy being failure to identify parametrial involvement (PI). The goal of this study is to determine the accuracy of CE in comparison to final pathology (FP) in early operable CC. Methods: This is a multi-center retrospective review of patients with early CC (FIGO stage IB1, IIA1). Data on age, race, histology, stage, CE findings, FP report and receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) were collected. CE findings included TS, PI and vaginal involvement (VI). CE of TS, PI, and VI were compared to FP. Subanalysis was also conducted based on TS ( < or ≥ 2cm) and location of tumor (exophytic vs endophytic). Analysis was performed using paired-T and Cohen’s Kappa tests. Results: Final analysis included 135 patients. Mean age was 52.6 years. The majority of patients had squamous cell carcinoma (72.6%). Overall, there was a significant difference between CE of TS compared to FP; mean error of 1.22 cm (p < 0.0001). In those with tumors ≥ 2cm the mean error was 1.28 cm (p < 0.0001). No significant discrepancy was observed in tumors < 2 cm (mean error: 1.10cm; p = 0.5). CE of TS of endophytic tumors was poor (mean error 1.68cm; p = 0.004) compared to exophytic tumors (mean error: 1.12 cm; p = 0.693). There was no significant difference in the identification of VI between CE and FP (3.7% vs 8.89%; p = 0.067). No patients with PI on CE were included in this analysis. However, 14.07% of patients were found to have PI on FP (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the accuracy CE of TS between non-obese ( < 30 kg/m2) and obese patients (≥30 kg/m2), mean error 1.13 and 1.3, respectively (p = 0.061). As a results of FP, 55 patients (40.7%) received adjuvant RT and 38 patients (28.14%) were upstaged from IB1 to IB2. Of these 38 patients, 36 (94.7%) went on to receive adjuvant RT. Conclusions: CE of TS and PI is inaccurate, especially in tumors ≥ 2cm and endophytic tumors. This suggests imaging should be strongly encouraged, particularly in the setting of the updated FIGO 2018 staging system and recent debate over surgical approach.