Korean J Obstet Gynecol.  2010 Aug;53(8):669-680. 10.5468/kjog.2010.53.8.669.

Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging systems in gynecologic malignancies

• Lee M
• Kim YT

• KMID: 2273983
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/kjog.2010.53.8.669

Abstract

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) has reported annually for the development and changes of gynecologic cancer classification and staging since 1958. FIGO staging systems in gynecologic malignancies has been reflected on prognostic factors in predicting patients' outcomes and organized patients into several groups. The aim of the FIGO staging system is to afford a classification of gynecologic cancer and to share treatment methods with others. The FIGO staging systems have been updated several times every 3 years according to the latest data, which is responsive and adaptive to scientific development including imaging and treatment modalities. In 2008, the FIGO staging system for carcinoma of the cervix, endometrium, vulva, and uterine sarcomas was revised. After applying the revised staging system in clinical setting, it is need to consider and review problems. As a result, we must make up for the weak points in staging systems continuously.

Keyword

FIGO; Staging systems; Gynecologic malignancies

MeSH Terms

Cervix Uteri
Endometrium
Female
Gynecology
Humans
Obstetrics
Sarcoma
Vulva

Reference

1. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009. 105:107–108.

2. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Coakley FV, Snyder B, Reinhold C, Schwartz LH, et al. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation - ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability. Radiology. 2007. 245:491–498.

3. Hong JH, Tsai CS, Lai CH, Chang TC, Wang CC, Chou HH, et al. Risk stratification of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of cervix treated by radiotherapy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005. 63:492–499.

4. Horn LC, Fischer U, Raptis G, Bilek K, Hentschel B. Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage II cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007. 107:310–315.

5. Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009. 105:109.

6. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009. 105:103–104.

7. Prat J. FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009. 104:177–178.

8. Horn LC, Schmidt D, Fathke C, Ulrich U. New FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Pathologe. 2009. 30:302–303.

9. Homesley HD, Bundy BN, Sedlis A, Yordan E, Berek JS, Jahshan A, et al. Assessment of current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of vulvar carcinoma relative to prognostic factors for survival (a Gynecologic Oncology Group study). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991. 164:997–1003. discussion-4.

10. Tantipalakorn C, Robertson G, Marsden DE, Gebski V, Hacker NF. Outcome and patterns of recurrence for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages I and II squamous cell vulvar cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 113:895–901.

11. Fons G, Hyde SE, Buist MR, Schilthuis MS, Grant P, Burger MP, et al. Prognostic value of bilateral positive nodes in squamous cell cancer of the vulva. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009. 19:1276–1280.

12. Kohorn EI. The new FIGO 2000 staging and risk factor scoring system for gestational trophoblastic disease: description and critical assessment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001. 11:73–77.