We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical utility of pretreatment serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen for prognostication and decision-making in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic role of pretreatment squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCA) in early-stage cervical cancer (CC).
METHODS: We enrolled 487 cases of pathology-proven early-stage [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) I/II] squamous or adenosquamous CC that were treated from 2012 to 2015. Restricted cubic splines (RCS) with a full Cox regression model were used to evaluate the association between SCCA levels and survival outcomes. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to construct a risk stratification model for overall survival (OS). The performance of the RPA-based model was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: RCS analysis revealed an association between SCCA and OS and disease-free survival (DFS); SCCA ⩾2.5 ng/mL was robust for risk discrimination in our cohort. SCCA had an interaction effect with FIGO classification: Patients with FIGO I and SCCA ⩾2.5 ng/mL overlapped with those with FIGO II and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL for OS [hazard ratio, 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-2.24), p = 0.903] and DFS [1.05 (0.56-1.98), p = 0.876]. RPA modeling incorporating SCCA (<2.5 ng/mL and ⩾2.5 ng/mL) and FIGO classification divided CC into three prognostic groups: RPA I, FIGO stage I, and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL; RPA II, FIGO stage I, and SCCA ⩾ 2.5 ng/mL, or FIGO stage II and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL; and RPA III, FIGO stage II, and SCCA ⩾ 2.5 ng/mL; with 5-year OS of 94.0%, 85.1%, and 73.5%, respectively ( p < 0.001). ROC analysis confirmed that the RPA model outperformed the FIGO 2018 stage with significantly improved accuracy for survival prediction [area under the curve: RPA versus FIGO, 0.663 (95% CI: 0.619-0.705] versus 0.621 (0.576-0.664), p = 0.045]. Importantly, the RPA groupings were associated with the efficacy of treatment regimens. Surgery followed by adjuvant treatment had a higher OS ( p < 0.01) and DFS ( p = 0.024) than other treatments for RPA III, whereas outcomes were comparable among treatment regimens for RPA I-II.
CONCLUSION: Herein, the role of SCCA for prognostication was confirmed, and a robust clinicomolecular risk stratification system that outperforms conventional FIGO classification in early-stage squamous and adenosquamous CC was presented. The model correlated with the efficacy of different treatment regimes.
METHODS: We enrolled 487 cases of pathology-proven early-stage [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) I/II] squamous or adenosquamous CC that were treated from 2012 to 2015. Restricted cubic splines (RCS) with a full Cox regression model were used to evaluate the association between SCCA levels and survival outcomes. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to construct a risk stratification model for overall survival (OS). The performance of the RPA-based model was assessed using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: RCS analysis revealed an association between SCCA and OS and disease-free survival (DFS); SCCA ⩾2.5 ng/mL was robust for risk discrimination in our cohort. SCCA had an interaction effect with FIGO classification: Patients with FIGO I and SCCA ⩾2.5 ng/mL overlapped with those with FIGO II and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL for OS [hazard ratio, 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-2.24), p = 0.903] and DFS [1.05 (0.56-1.98), p = 0.876]. RPA modeling incorporating SCCA (<2.5 ng/mL and ⩾2.5 ng/mL) and FIGO classification divided CC into three prognostic groups: RPA I, FIGO stage I, and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL; RPA II, FIGO stage I, and SCCA ⩾ 2.5 ng/mL, or FIGO stage II and SCCA < 2.5 ng/mL; and RPA III, FIGO stage II, and SCCA ⩾ 2.5 ng/mL; with 5-year OS of 94.0%, 85.1%, and 73.5%, respectively ( p < 0.001). ROC analysis confirmed that the RPA model outperformed the FIGO 2018 stage with significantly improved accuracy for survival prediction [area under the curve: RPA versus FIGO, 0.663 (95% CI: 0.619-0.705] versus 0.621 (0.576-0.664), p = 0.045]. Importantly, the RPA groupings were associated with the efficacy of treatment regimens. Surgery followed by adjuvant treatment had a higher OS ( p < 0.01) and DFS ( p = 0.024) than other treatments for RPA III, whereas outcomes were comparable among treatment regimens for RPA I-II.
CONCLUSION: Herein, the role of SCCA for prognostication was confirmed, and a robust clinicomolecular risk stratification system that outperforms conventional FIGO classification in early-stage squamous and adenosquamous CC was presented. The model correlated with the efficacy of different treatment regimes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app