Increasing age predicts poor cervical cancer prognosis with subsequent effect on treatment and overall survival

Stage and histology are well-established prognostic factors for cervical cancer, but the importance of age has been controversial and a clear role for this factor has not yet been defined. Thus, we aim with this study to evaluate the significance of age as an independent prognostic factor in women with cervical cancer and evaluate the therapeutic consequences and survival outcomes as they relate to this factor.

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to retrospectively analyze patients diagnosed with cervical cancer from 1973 to 2013 in the United States. Data collected included demographics, tumor histology and stage, treatment details, and survival outcomes. Age was grouped into 20-49, 50-69, ≥70 years. Stage was localized (FIGO IA-IB1), regional (IB2-IVA), and distant (IVB). Treatments were classified as "aggressive" (surgery, external beam radiation therapy [XRT] + brachytherapy [BT], surgery + BT, surgery + XRT, or surgery + XRT + BT) or "nonaggressive" (XRT alone, BT alone, or no treatment). Statistical analysis performed on these data included the use of the Log-Rank test, χ² analysis, and the Cox proportional hazards model.

Forty-six thousand three hundred fifty women with cervical cancer were identified using the SEER database. 54% were aged <50 years, 33% 50-69 years, and 13% ≥70 years. Older women, particular those over age 70 years, show significantly decreased survival trends when stratified by stage and histology (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, taking stage, histology, race, and treatment into account, increasing age demonstrates negative prognostic significance with a hazard ratio of 2.87 for women over age 70 years and 1.46 for women aged 50-69 years. In addition, women over 70 years, regardless of stage, are significantly more likely to receive nonaggressive treatment regimens (<0.0001), or no treatment at all (p < 0.0001). Finally, older women gain a significant survival advantage from treatment, even with less-aggressive regimens, as compared with no treatment at all (p < 0.0001), with BT alone showing the greatest survival benefit (p < 0.0001 vs no treatment; p < 0.0087 vs XRT) among less-aggressive therapies. When evaluated by stage, BT continues to hold a significant survival advantage for localized, regional, and distant disease in individuals over age 70 years (localized: p = 0.0009 vs no treatment; regional and distant: p < 0.0001 vs no treatment), with both an overall survival and disease-specific survival benefit over XRT seen as well for women with distant disease (p < 0.0001).

Older women with cervical cancer show a poor overall survival trend that remains consistent among various stages and histologic subtypes. Risk analysis of this study population supports that age is an independent negative prognostic factor, even when accounting for stage, histology, and race. Furthermore, older women receive less-aggressive treatment as compared with their younger counterparts, with a significant number receiving no treatment at all. Despite this, older women still obtain a significant survival benefit with less-aggressive therapies, particularly with BT alone. Most interesting is that BT shows a survival benefit for older women among all cervical cancer stages, supporting the immense potential clinical benefit. In fact, women over 70 years with more advanced stage disease showed a significant survival benefit, both overall survival and disease-specific survival, with BT over external beam radiotherapy as well. Previous studies have created a foundation of literature, which shows that inclusion of BT in treatment regimens among all age groups improves survival and that older women in general are less likely to be adequately treated for cervical cancer. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that it demonstrates that older women, who we show are at risk for a poorer overall prognosis because of their age, are not only receiving appropriate treatment less often, they are also dying more frequently because of it. Our data support that older women are a high-risk group of patients who would benefit significantly from treatment, even if that treatment is BT alone. BT for cervical cancer is a tolerable procedure, even for most elderly women, and should, therefore, remain a standard clinical option for this population, regardless of their stage or histology at diagnosis.