Stage IV Ovarian Cancer Is Not Uniformly Lethal: Two Subgroups With Stage II‐Like Outcomes Identified in Large Retrospective Cohorts
- 1Department of Gynecologic Oncology Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou Guangdong China
- 2State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine Sun Yat‐Sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou Guangdong China
Abstract
Background: The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for advanced ovarian cancer has remained largely static since 2014, with stage IV subdivided into IVA and IVB without further stratification. Emerging evidence suggests substantial prognostic heterogeneity within stage IV, yet large‐scale validation remains limited.
Methods: We analyzed 28,010 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2022) and 1175 from the Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC) (2010–2026). Propensity score matching (1:1) balanced baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) was compared across subgroups. We defined IVA‐T1a as patients meeting FIGO IVA criteria with intra‐abdominal disease limited to one ovary (intact capsule). We defined IVB‐ILNT2 as stage IVB with metastasis confined to a single extra‐abdominal lymph node station and intra‐abdominal disease ≤ T2. IVB patients were stratified by metastatic pattern and surgical outcome.
Results: In SEER, IVA‐T1a patients (n = 49) showed no OS difference versus stage II (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95–1.23, p = 0.250), but significantly better survival than stage IIIA (HR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.08–1.62, p = 0.024). Findings were validated in SYSUCC (IVA‐T1a n = 15; vs. stage II p = 0.638, vs. IIIA p = 0.026). Among IVB patients, those with single‐station lymph node metastases achieving R0/R1 resection (n = 152) had median OS of 29.0 months, comparable to stage IIIC patients (HR 1.08, p = 0.872). In SYSUCC, IVB‐ILNT2 subgroup (n = 65) demonstrated survival comparable to stage II (p = 4e‐04 vs. other IVB) and significantly better than stage IIIA.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that such patients may have a more favorable prognosis than implied by their current stage designation and underscore the need for prospective validation to determine whether treatment de‐escalation could be considered in these specific subsets without compromising outcomes. Future FIGO revisions should consider refined classification incorporating intra‐abdominal tumor burden and metastatic pattern, pending consistent validation across multiple independent populations.
Related
- Molecular subgroups of ALS patients with distinct survival outcomes identified through plasma proteomics
- Reproductive outcomes after expectant management and 5- versus 15-minute laparoscopic ethanol sclerotherapy for ovarian endometriomas: a retrospective cohort study
- Comparison of Survival Outcomes with First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance According to BRCA Mutation and Homologous Recombination Deficiency Status in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
- Association of vitamin E and coenzyme Q10 pretreatment with embryological and pregnancy outcomes in women with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective study
- Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancies Complicated by Predominantly Benign Ovarian Lesions: A Retrospective Case-Control Study of 305 Pregnancies
BibTeX
@article{fang2026stage,
title = {{Stage IV Ovarian Cancer Is Not Uniformly Lethal: Two Subgroups With Stage II‐Like Outcomes Identified in Large Retrospective Cohorts}},
author = {Cheng Fang and Jundong Li and Qiaqia Li},
journal = {Cancer Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/cam4.72430},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.72430},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Stage IV Ovarian Cancer Is Not Uniformly Lethal: Two Subgroups With Stage II‐Like Outcomes Identified in Large Retrospective Cohorts
AU - Cheng Fang
AU - Jundong Li
AU - Qiaqia Li
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - Cancer Medicine
DO - 10.1002/cam4.72430
UR - https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.72430
AB - Background: The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for advanced ovarian cancer has remained largely static since 2014, with stage IV subdivided into IVA and IVB without further stratification. Emerging evidence suggests substantial prognostic heterogeneity within stage IV, yet large‐scale validation remains limited. Methods: We analyzed 28,010 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2022) and 1175 from the Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC) (2010–2026). Propensity score matching (1:1) balanced baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) was compared across subgroups. We defined IVA‐T1a as patients meeting FIGO IVA criteria with intra‐abdominal disease limited to one ovary (intact capsule). We defined IVB‐ILNT2 as stage IVB with metastasis confined to a single extra‐abdominal lymph node station and intra‐abdominal disease ≤ T2. IVB patients were stratified by metastatic pattern and surgical outcome. Results: In SEER, IVA‐T1a patients (n = 49) showed no OS difference versus stage II (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95–1.23, p = 0.250), but significantly better survival than stage IIIA (HR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.08–1.62, p = 0.024). Findings were validated in SYSUCC (IVA‐T1a n = 15; vs. stage II p = 0.638, vs. IIIA p = 0.026). Among IVB patients, those with single‐station lymph node metastases achieving R0/R1 resection (n = 152) had median OS of 29.0 months, comparable to stage IIIC patients (HR 1.08, p = 0.872). In SYSUCC, IVB‐ILNT2 subgroup (n = 65) demonstrated survival comparable to stage II (p = 4e‐04 vs. other IVB) and significantly better than stage IIIA. Conclusions: These findings suggest that such patients may have a more favorable prognosis than implied by their current stage designation and underscore the need for prospective validation to determine whether treatment de‐escalation could be considered in these specific subsets without compromising outcomes. Future FIGO revisions should consider refined classification incorporating intra‐abdominal tumor burden and metastatic pattern, pending consistent validation across multiple independent populations.
SN - 2045-7634
ER -