# FIGO 2018 Versus Ontogenetic Staging for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study Comparing the Two Classifications and Their Prognostic Implications

## TL;DR

A new staging system for cervical cancer based on tumor spread patterns outperforms the traditional FIGO system in predicting patient outcomes.

## Contribution

The ontogenetic tumor (oT) staging system is the first to use imaging alone for advanced cervical cancer and shows better prognostic accuracy than FIGO 2018.

## Key findings

- The ontogenetic staging system showed clearer survival curve separation than FIGO 2018.
- Multivariable models confirmed better discriminative ability of ontogenetic staging for cancer-specific survival.
- Ontogenetic staging provided refined risk stratification within FIGO IIIC and parametrial invasion groups.

## Abstract

This study looked at a new way of classifying how cervical cancer spreads in the body, the ontogenetic tumor (oT) staging system. Unlike the traditional FIGO staging system, this new method is based on a more detailed anatomic understanding of how tumors grow and move, as seen on modern medical scans. This is the first time this oT staging approach has been successfully applied using imaging tests alone in advanced cervical cancer. Our results show that this new system works better than the current FIGO 2018 system in several important ways. These findings suggest that we may need to rethink how we classify cervical cancer. Because this new method is more accurate and better at predicting patient outcomes, it could augment existing staging strategies to improve cervical cancer management in the future.

Background/Objective: The aim of this study was to compare two different staging systems (FIGO 2018 and ontogenetic staging) for cervical cancer in a locally advanced setting and to determine which one provides better prognostic stratification and a stronger association with oncological outcomes. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with cervical cancer (FIGO 2018 stages IIB-IVA) primarily treated with chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the difference in accuracy for predicting cancer-specific survival at 3 years between the ontogenetic tumor staging system and the FIGO 2018 staging system. Secondary endpoints assessed the same difference in prognostic power with respect to recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Results: Of 341 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, the ontogenetic tumor staging system demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared to the FIGO 2018 system. The ontogenetic system showed clear separation of Kaplan–Meier curves for recurrence-free, overall, and cancer-specific survival, unlike the overlapping FIGO 2018 survival curves. Multivariable Cox models controlling clinicopathological factors revealed a progressive, significant worsening of cancer-specific survival across ontogenetic tumor (oT) stages, which was not observed with FIGO staging. Formal comparisons using Harrell’s C-index, time-dependent areas under the curve (AUC), and Akaike’s information criterion confirmed the ontogenetic model’s significantly better discriminative ability and fit. Furthermore, ontogenetic staging provided significant risk stratification within the FIGO IIIC nodal-positive group and among patients with parametrial invasion, demonstrating its refined prognostic utility. Conclusions: Ontogenetic tumor staging can be effectively applied using imaging alone and was superior to the FIGO 2018 classification in this study.