Impact of impaired glucose regulation on recurrence within 2 years after modified radical surgery in patients with cervical cancer

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2024.02.015

Objective

To explore the impact of impaired glucose regulation (IGR) on recurrence within 2 years after modified radical surgery in cervical cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 106 patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer who were hospitalized in the Second Hospital of Shijiazhuang from March 2019 to February 2021 were selected as the study subjects. All patients were scheduled for modified radical surgery of cervical cancer. By retrospective analysis, the patients were divided into recurrence group (n=20) and non-recurrence group (n=86) according to the tumor recurrence within 2 years after operation. According to the definition of the Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China (2017 Edition), patients were evaluated and divided into IGR and normal glucose tolerance (NGT). And IGR included impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). Log-rank test was used to compare the risk of recurrence within 2 years after modified radical surgery of cervical cancer between two groups. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze the independent influencing factors of recurrence within 2 years after modified radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer, and a nomogram prediction model for recurrence within 2 years after modified radical surgery of cervical cancer patients was constructed based on these independent influencing factors. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Second Hospital of Shijiazhuang (Approval No. KY2019-012). All patients signed the informed consent forms for clinical research.

Results

① Among the 106 patients in this study, 33 cases were diagnosed as IFG and 25 cases as IGT. The proportion of patients with IGR was 54.7%. The recurrence time of 20 patients with cervical cancer recurrence was 15.50 months. The risk of recurrence within 2 years after modified radical resection in patients with IGR was higher than that in patients with NGT, and the difference was statistically significant (χ²=8.93, P=0.003). ② The proportion of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage ⅡA, the rate of lymphatic vascular invasion (LVSI), the incidence of tumor invasion of the cervical stroma of 1/3 deep, the positive rate of parauterine tissue infiltration, the proportion of patients with IGR, and the serum levels of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) and cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1) in recurrence group were higher than those in non-recurrence group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). ③ Cox proportional hazard regression analysis showed that patients with IGR (HR=4.342, 95%CI: 1.192-15.820, P=0.026), FIGO stage ⅡA (HR=3.794, 95%CI: 1.316-10.935, P=0.014), LVSI (HR=3.017, 95%CI: 1.137-8.007, P=0.027), serum SCC level increased (HR=1.250, 95%CI: 1.015-1.538, P=0.036), serum CYFRA21-1 level increased (HR=1.217, 95%CI: 1.042-1.420, P=0.013) were all independent risk factors for recurrence within 2 years after modified radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer. ④ The C-index of the nomogram prediction model of recurrence risk within 2 years after modified radical resection of cervical cancer was 0.874. The calibration curve showed that the prediction results of the nomogram were consistent with the observation results. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the prediction model was 0.874.

Conclusion

Cervical cancer patients with IGR have an increased risk of recurrence within 2 years after modified radical surgery.

Key words: Uterine cervical neoplasms, Impaired glucose regulation, Prediabetic state, Modified radical surgery, Recurrence, Female

图1 宫颈癌患者改良根治术后2年内复发风险曲线

表1 2组宫颈癌患者临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	有吸烟史[例数(%)]	肿瘤FIGO分期[例数(%)]		肿瘤最大径>3 cm[例数(%)]	肿瘤病理级别[例数(%)]
组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	有吸烟史[例数(%)]	ⅠB	ⅡA	肿瘤最大径>3 cm[例数(%)]	高级别	低级别
复发组	20	54.2±6.0	5(25.0)	5(25.0)	15(75.0)	13(65.0)	12(60.0)	8(40.0)
未复发组	86	56.2±5.6	13(15.1)	55(64.0)	31(36.0)	41(47.7)	36(41.9)	50(58.1)
统计量		t＝1.40	χ²＝0.53	χ²＝10.02		χ²＝1.95	χ²＝2.15
P值		0.165	0.466	0.002		0.163	0.142
组别	例数	LVSI[例数(%)]	肿瘤病理类型[例数(%)]		肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3[例数(%)]	切缘阳性[例数(%)]	宫旁组织浸润阳性[例数(%)]	术后放疗[例数(%)]
组别	例数	LVSI[例数(%)]	鳞癌	腺癌	肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3[例数(%)]	切缘阳性[例数(%)]	宫旁组织浸润阳性[例数(%)]	术后放疗[例数(%)]
复发组	20	12(60.0)	4(20.0)	16(80.0)	13(65.0)	11(55.0)	14(70.0)	6(30.0)
未复发组	86	23(26.7)	17(19.8)	69(80.2)	30(34.9)	55(64.0)	36(41.9)	39(45.4)
统计量		χ²＝8.11	χ²＝0.08		χ²＝6.40	χ²＝0.55	χ²＝5.16	χ²＝1.56
P值		0.004	0.773		0.013	0.457	0.023	0.211
组别	例数	IGR[例数(%)]	血清SCC水平(ng/mL，±s)	血清CEA水平(μg/L，±s)	血清CA₁₂₅水平(U/L，±s)	血清CA₁₉₉水平(U/mL，±s)	血清CYFRA21-1水平(ng/mL，±s)
复发组	20	17(85.0)	17.8±3.0	18.6±2.9	85.3±8.3	78.3±8.5	15.3±2.6
未复发组	86	41(47.7)	15.9±2.6	20.1±3.4	82.2±9.5	81.3±8.1	13.5±2.2
统计量		χ²＝9.12	t＝2.87	t＝1.84	t＝1.30	t＝1.44	t＝2.96
P值		0.003	0.014	0.069	0.196	0.153	0.004

表1 2组宫颈癌患者临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	有吸烟史[例数(%)]	肿瘤FIGO分期[例数(%)]		肿瘤最大径>3 cm[例数(%)]	肿瘤病理级别[例数(%)]
组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	有吸烟史[例数(%)]	ⅠB	ⅡA	肿瘤最大径>3 cm[例数(%)]	高级别	低级别
复发组	20	54.2±6.0	5(25.0)	5(25.0)	15(75.0)	13(65.0)	12(60.0)	8(40.0)
未复发组	86	56.2±5.6	13(15.1)	55(64.0)	31(36.0)	41(47.7)	36(41.9)	50(58.1)
统计量		t＝1.40	χ²＝0.53	χ²＝10.02		χ²＝1.95	χ²＝2.15
P值		0.165	0.466	0.002		0.163	0.142
组别	例数	LVSI[例数(%)]	肿瘤病理类型[例数(%)]		肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3[例数(%)]	切缘阳性[例数(%)]	宫旁组织浸润阳性[例数(%)]	术后放疗[例数(%)]
组别	例数	LVSI[例数(%)]	鳞癌	腺癌	肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3[例数(%)]	切缘阳性[例数(%)]	宫旁组织浸润阳性[例数(%)]	术后放疗[例数(%)]
复发组	20	12(60.0)	4(20.0)	16(80.0)	13(65.0)	11(55.0)	14(70.0)	6(30.0)
未复发组	86	23(26.7)	17(19.8)	69(80.2)	30(34.9)	55(64.0)	36(41.9)	39(45.4)
统计量		χ²＝8.11	χ²＝0.08		χ²＝6.40	χ²＝0.55	χ²＝5.16	χ²＝1.56
P值		0.004	0.773		0.013	0.457	0.023	0.211
组别	例数	IGR[例数(%)]	血清SCC水平(ng/mL，±s)	血清CEA水平(μg/L，±s)	血清CA₁₂₅水平(U/L，±s)	血清CA₁₉₉水平(U/mL，±s)	血清CYFRA21-1水平(ng/mL，±s)
复发组	20	17(85.0)	17.8±3.0	18.6±2.9	85.3±8.3	78.3±8.5	15.3±2.6
未复发组	86	41(47.7)	15.9±2.6	20.1±3.4	82.2±9.5	81.3±8.1	13.5±2.2
统计量		χ²＝9.12	t＝2.87	t＝1.84	t＝1.30	t＝1.44	t＝2.96
P值		0.003	0.014	0.069	0.196	0.153	0.004

表2 宫颈癌患者改良根治术后2年内复发的影响因素分析

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	HR值	HR值95%CI
IGR(vs NGT)	1.468	0.660	4.954	0.026	4.342	1.192～15.820
FIGO ⅡA期(vs ⅠB期)	1.333	0.540	6.095	0.014	3.794	1.316～10.935
LVSI(vs否)	1.104	0.498	4.920	0.027	3.017	1.137～8.007
肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3(vs否)	0.191	0.530	0.130	0.719	1.210	0.429～3.417
宫旁组织浸润阳性(vs阴性)	0.487	0.542	0.810	0.368	1.628	0.563～4.708
血清SCC水平(连续变量)	0.223	0.106	4.416	0.036	1.250	1.015～1.538
血清CYFRA21-1水平(连续变量)	0.196	0.079	6.163	0.013	1.217	1.042～1.420

表2 宫颈癌患者改良根治术后2年内复发的影响因素分析

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	HR值	HR值95%CI
IGR(vs NGT)	1.468	0.660	4.954	0.026	4.342	1.192～15.820
FIGO ⅡA期(vs ⅠB期)	1.333	0.540	6.095	0.014	3.794	1.316～10.935
LVSI(vs否)	1.104	0.498	4.920	0.027	3.017	1.137～8.007
肿瘤侵犯宫颈间质深1/3(vs否)	0.191	0.530	0.130	0.719	1.210	0.429～3.417
宫旁组织浸润阳性(vs阴性)	0.487	0.542	0.810	0.368	1.628	0.563～4.708
血清SCC水平(连续变量)	0.223	0.106	4.416	0.036	1.250	1.015～1.538
血清CYFRA21-1水平(连续变量)	0.196	0.079	6.163	0.013	1.217	1.042～1.420

图2 宫颈癌改良根治术后2年内复发风险的列线图预测模型、校准曲线及ROC曲线(图2A:预测模型；图2B:校准曲线；图2C: ROC曲线)注：FIGO为国际妇产科联盟，LVSI为淋巴脉管浸润，SCC为鳞癌抗原，CYFRA21-1为细胞角蛋白19片段。ROC曲线为受试者工作特征曲线

[1]	马敏榕，李聪，周勤. 宫颈癌治疗研究现状 [J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(5): 497-504. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2023.05.001.
[2]	王一然，王平. 《巴西肿瘤外科协会盆腔廓清术治疗宫颈癌指南》解读 [J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2021, 17(2): 142-151. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2021.02.004.
[3]	巨宇叶，张芳芳，王晓慧. 复发性宫颈癌的治疗现状及进展[J]. 国际妇产科学杂志，2021, 48(1): 56-60, 70. DOI: 10.12280/gjfckx.20200695.
[4]	Ampferl R, Rodemann HP, Mayer C, et al. Glucose starvation impairs DNA repair in tumour cells selectively by blocking histone acetylation[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2018, 126(3): 465-470. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.10.020.
[5]	刘畅浩，林海雪，吴妙芳，等. 糖代谢异常与Ⅰ期子宫内膜样腺癌临床病理及预后的相关性[J]. 中山大学学报(医学科学版), 2021, 42(6): 883-891. DOI: 10.13471/j.cnki.j.sun.yat-sen.univ(med.sci).2021.0.
[6]	李明，刘霞，王英新，等. Ⅰ～Ⅲ期结直肠癌根治术患者术前糖耐量水平与术后生存状况的相关性分析[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展，2022, 25(12): 987-989, 993. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-9905.2022.12.016.
[7]	贺寅，郑蓉，刘永珍. 不同糖代谢异常状态卵巢癌患者的预后分析[J]. 癌症进展，2019, 17(24): 2991-2993, 3008. DOI: 10.11877/j.issn.1672-1535.2019.17.24.33.
[8]	中国抗癌协会妇科肿瘤专业委员会. 宫颈癌诊断与治疗指南(第4版)[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志，2018, 34(6): 613-622. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2018060111.
[9]	中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2017年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志，2018, 10(1): 4-67. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-5809.2018.01.003.
[10]	王蕾，吴益康，马骏，等. 2型糖尿病患者的恶性肿瘤发病风险：基于浙江省嘉兴市糖尿病管理数据的回顾性队列研究[J]. 肿瘤，2019, 39(7): 548-557. DOI: 10.3781/j.issn.1000-7431.2019.22.083.
[11]	Zhang K, Bai P, Dai H, et al. Metformin and risk of cancer among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Prim Care Diabetes, 2021, 15(1): 52-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2020.06.001.
[12]	黄婧源，黄艳丽. 以大型人群真实世界数据为基础的2型糖尿病患者相关指标临床控制达标率研究[J]. 中国全科医学，2022, 25(8): 905-912. DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.01.321.
[13]	Cao M, Isaac R, Yan W, et al. Cancer-cell-secreted extracellular vesicles suppress insulin secretion through miR-122 to impair systemic glucose homeostasis and contribute to tumour growth[J]. Nat Cell Biol, 2022, 24(6): 954-967. DOI: 10.1038/s41556-022-00919-7.
[14]	韩艳萍，甄东户，甄洁玉. 糖尿病与肿瘤发生风险的关系及可能机制[J]. 宁夏医科大学学报，2020, 42(5): 532-537. DOI: 10.16050/j.cnki.issn1674-6309.2020.05.022.
[15]	中国抗癌协会肿瘤内分泌专业委员会，重庆市中西医结合学会肿瘤内分泌分会. 肿瘤相关性高血糖管理指南(2021年版)[J]. 中国癌症杂志，2021, 31(7): 651-687. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2021.07.013.
[16]	朱彦儒，黄显元，杨莹，等. 恶性肿瘤疾病史对2型糖尿病患者治疗依从性和血糖水平的影响研究[J]. 肿瘤预防与治疗，2021, 34(6): 550-554. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0904.2021.06.011.
[17]	刘楷东，孙岩萍. 不同辅助治疗方式对术后存在中危因素子宫颈癌患者的疗效分析[J]. 肿瘤研究与临床，2023, 35(7): 532-536. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20220114-00024.
[18]	黎金婷，庞晓燕，窦磊. 淋巴血管间隙浸润对妇科恶性肿瘤预后影响的研究进展[J]. 肿瘤预防与治疗，2020, 33(5): 452-456. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-0904.2020.05.013.
[19]	Yan W, Qiu S, Ding Y, et al. Prognostic value of lymphovascular space invasion in patients with early stage cervical cancer in Jilin, China: a retrospective study[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(40): e17301. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017301.

[1]	Shuqin Zhang, Lian Chen. Diagnosis and treatment of postpartum intrauterine retained products of conception[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 493-497.
[2]	Jiechun Shi, Ziyu Fan, Yan Xing. Early warning efficiency of different screening methods on cervical adenocarcinoma in situ[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 575-581.
[3]	Dan Tang, Xiaoxi Yao, Bowen Yang, Shaolong Xue, Mengyao Li, Liuxing Wei, Mingrong Xi. The impact of doublecortin-like kinase 1 on the clinical characteristics of endometrioid adenocarcinoma patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2024, 20(05): 582-590.
[4]	Liuqing Li, Xiaoxiang Chen, Chengyu Lv. Comparison of total laparoscopic and laparoscopic assisted radical gastrectomy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in the near and medium term[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[5]	Shijun Liu, Jie Ma, Lujing Shi. Near-and medium-term follow-up study of complete mesangectomy plus standard D2 radical resection for advanced gastric cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[6]	Tianwei Xie, Yufan Pang, Li Wu. Effect of different ultrasound-guided ablation on the volume reduction rate and recurrence rate of benign thyroid nodules[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(01): 80-83.
[7]	Zhao Zhang, Chengyu Luo, Shuqi Zhang, Ping He, Xubin Li. Comparison of the effect, complication rate and recurrence rate of different operation methods in treating early breast cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 494-497.
[8]	Wei Li, Zijian Song, Yancheng Lai, Rui Zhou, Han Wu, Longxin Deng, Rui Chen. The current state and prospects of artificial intelligence applied to prognosis prediction in prostate cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[9]	Yan Zhou, Ying Li, Xiaobing Zhou, Fahui Cheng, Hengzheng He. Efficacy of different types of mesh combined with Nissen fundoplication for repairing hiatal hernia and potential risk factors for recurrence[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 528-533.
[10]	Yafei Yan, Xuesheng Fan, Jian Zhang, Yong Wu. Clinical effect of recurrent inguinal hernia treated by trans-abdominal preperitoneal hernia repair[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(05): 552-556.
[11]	Yu Gong, Yuan Liao, Mei Shang. Influencing factors and prediction model for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after TACE[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(06): 818-824.
[12]	Zhendong Jiao, Peng Hui, Shangbo Jin. Application of three-dimensional visualization combined with ICG imaging technology in laparoscopic hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(06): 859-864.
[13]	Wanyu Deng, Fu Chen, Leibo Xu. Comparison of postoperative recurrence-free survival and analysis of influencing factors between hepatitis B-associated hepatocellular carcinoma patients with and without liver cirrhosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2024, 13(05): 670-674.
[14]	Li Hang, Yaohui Zhang, Wenkai Sun. Effect of Shenba Kangliu Liquid on intestinal function, inflammatory index and recurrence after colorectal adenomatous polyp surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2024, 14(05): 413-416.
[15]	Zhaorong Guo, Xinguang Wang, Yiqiang Liu, Yingjian He, Lize Wang, Yang Yang, Xing Wang, Wei Cao, Chongshan Gu, Tie Fan, Jinfeng Li, Zhaoqing Fan. Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic risk factors of different subtypes of phyllodes tumor of the breast[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2024, 18(06): 524-532.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export