Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess survival differences between non-extensive surgery (NES) and extensive surgery (ES) in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from a population-based database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. METHODS: Propensity matching was conducted to minimize heterogeneity. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met screening criteria, among whom 84 patients (84/154) underwent NES while 70 patients (70/154) underwent ES. After matching, no survival advantage was observed in ES group compared with NES group (p=0.066; hazard ratio [HR]=1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.97-2.42). Stratified analyses suggested ES prolonged overall survival in patients with histology other than squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma (p=0.028; HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.15-0.89) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T stage T1 (p=0.009; HR=0.18; 95% CI=0.05-0.66). Despite no survival benefit after regional lymph node surgery (p=0.629; HR=0.88; 95% CI=0.53-1.47), subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients younger than 50 (p=0.006; HR=0.21; 95% CI=0.07-0.64), with AJCC T stage T1 (p=0.002; HR=0.09; 95% CI=0.02-0.42), T3 (p=0.001; HR=0.02; 95% CI=0.00-0.21), hematogenous metastasis (p=0.036; HR=0.27; 95% CI=0.08-0.92) and without surgery of other sites (p=0.040; HR=0.01; 95% CI=0.00-0.79) might achieve longer survival after regional lymph node surgery. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, ES or regional lymph node surgery may provide survival advantage for certain subgroup of FIGO IVB cervical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, it deserves large scale prospective clinical trials to confirm.