Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026
Tubal Cytology of the Fallopian Tube as a Promising Tool for Ovarian Cancer Early Detection
Published on: July 25, 2017
Can the FIGO 2000 scoring system for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia be simplified? A new retrospective analysis
Y K Eysbouts1, P B Ottevanger2, L F A G Massuger1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Background:
Worldwide introduction of the International Fedaration of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2000 scoring system has provided an effective means to stratify patients with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia to single- or multi-agent chemotherapy. However, the system is quite elaborate with an extensive set of risk factors. In this study, we re-evaluate all prognostic risk factors involved in the FIGO 2000 scoring system and examine if simplification is feasible.
Patients And Methods:
Between January 2003 and December 2012, 813 patients diagnosed with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia were identified at the Trophoblastic Disease Centre in London and scored using the FIGO 2000. Multivariable analysis and stepwise logistic regression were carried out to evaluate whether the FIGO 2000 scoring system could be simplified.
Results:
Of the eight FIGO risk factors only pre-treatment serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels exceeding 10 000 IU/l (OR = 5.0; 95% CI 2.5-10.4) and 100 000 IU/l (OR = 14.3; 95% CI 4.7-44.1), interval exceeding 7 months since antecedent pregnancy (OR = 4.1; 95% CI 1.0-16.2), and tumor size of over 5 cm (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.3-3.6) were identified as independently predictive for single-agent resistance. In addition, increased risk was apparent for antecedent term pregnancy (OR = 3.4; 95% CI 0.9-12.7) and the presence of five or more metastases (OR = 3.5; 95% CI 0.4-30.4), but patient numbers in these categories were relatively small. Stepwise logistic regression identified a simplified risk scoring model comprising age, pretreatment serum hCG, number of metastases, antecedent pregnancy, and interval but omitting tumor size, previous failed chemotherapy, and site of metastases. With this model only 1 out 725 patients was classified different from the FIGO 2000 system.
Conclusion:
Our simplified alternative using only five of the FIGO prognostic factors appears to be an accurate system for discriminating patients requiring single as opposed to multi-agent chemotherapy. Further work is urgently needed to validate these findings.
