White paper on the current state of cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment in China in 2025

Cervical Cancer Committee of China Anti-Cancer Association

Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2) : 205-211.

PDF(2075 KB)
PDF(2075 KB)
Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2) : 205-211. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2026020115

White paper on the current state of cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment in China in 2025

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Objective To investigate the current state of clinical diagnosis and treatment for cervical cancer in China,focusing on systemic therapeutic practices. By surveying clinicians on biomarker testing applications,treatment regimen considerations and preferences,this study is aimed to identify unmet clinical needs and provide a reference for standardization of diagnosis and treatment. Methods A nationwide sampling survey combining online questionnaires and in-depth interviews was conducted from August to September 2025,involving 300 clinicians (30 experts participated in interviews,270 completed questionnaires). The survey primarily covered the admission of cervical cancer patients,patient stage and pathology types,biomarker testing,treatment strategies for locally advanced,recurrent,or metastatic cervical cancer (including first-,second- or later-line settings). It also covered clinicians’ insights regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). Results A total of 270 valid questionnaires and 30 valid expert interviews were obtained. At diagnosis,early-stage (ⅠA1-ⅠB2,ⅡA1),locally advanced (ⅠB3,ⅡA2-ⅣA),and recurrent/metastatic (ⅣB) cervical cancer (r/m CC) accounted for 32.2%,35.8%,and 31.9%,respectively. Squamous cell carcinoma was predominant (74.9%). Among the patients,75.0% were recommended for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and other biomarker testing,with an actual testing rate of 53.7%. For locally advanced cervical cancer,concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with or without ICIs was the first choice. For r/m CC,first-line treatment was mainly ICI combined with chemotherapy±anti-angiogenic agents (71%). For second- or later-line treatment,combination regimens predominated (approximately 75%). Among patients not previously treated with ICIs,chemotherapy combined with ICIs was the first choice,with chemotherapy combined with ICIs and chemotherapy combined with anti-angiogenic agents accounting for 37% and 34% of cases,respectively. For patients with prior ICI exposure,chemotherapy combined with ICIs and chemotherapy combined with anti-angiogenic agents were the first choices at 30% and 23%,respectively;regimens containing ADCs accounted for approximately 30%. Conclusions This study reveals the current status of cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment in China,highlighting gaps in biomarker testing recommendations and clinical application. It identifies core considerations and treatment options for locally advanced and r/m CC in first-line,providing data support for advancing standardized clinical practice.

Key words

cervical cancer / diagnosis / treatment / immune checkpoint inhibitor / antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) / white paper

Cite this article

Download Citations
Cervical Cancer Committee of China Anti-Cancer Association. White paper on the current state of cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment in China in 2025[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2026, 42(2): 205-211 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.fk2026020115

References

[1]
Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China,2015[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(2):115-132. DOI:10.3322/caac.21338.
[2]
Han B, Zheng R, Zeng H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China,2022[J]. J Natl Cancer Cent, 2024, 4(1):47-53. DOI:10.1016/j.jncc.2024.01.006.
[3]
Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14(CONCORD-3):analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries[J]. Lancet, 2018, 391(10125):1023-1075. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3.
In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014.CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37·5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights.For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89·5% in Australia and 90·2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66·1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68·9%), colon (71·8%), and rectum (71·1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36·0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27·9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59·9% in South Korea, 52·1% in Taiwan, and 49·6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52·5%, 50·5%, and 38·3%) and myeloid malignancies (45·9%, 33·4%, and 24·8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49·8% in Ecuador to 95·2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28·9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark).The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer.American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[4]
Abu-Rustum NR, Campos SM, Amarnath S, et al.NCCN Guidelines® Insights:Uterine Neoplasms,Version 3.2025. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2025, 23(8):284-291.DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2025.0038.
[5]
Pang SS, Murphy M, Markham MJ. Current management of locally advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in the United States[J]. JCO Oncol Pract, 2022, 18(6):417-422. DOI:10.1200/OP.21.00795.
[6]
中国抗癌协会宫颈癌专业委员会. 局部晚期子宫颈癌治疗指南(2025年版)[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2025, 41(2):186-193. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2025020111.
[7]
Cibula D, Rosaria Raspollini M, Planchamp F, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer-Update 2023[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2023, 184:109682. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109682.
[8]
蒋芳, 向阳. 帕博利珠单抗或安慰剂联合放化疗序贯帕博利珠单抗或安慰剂治疗新诊断的高危局部晚期子宫颈癌(KEYNOTE-A18):一项随机、双盲、Ⅲ期临床试验[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2024, 40(8):859-864.DOI:10.19538/j.fk2024080118.
[9]
McCormack M, Eminowicz G, Gallardo D, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by standard chemoradiotherapy versus standard chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (GCIG INTERLACE):an international,multicentre,randomised phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet, 2024, 404(10462):1525-1535. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01438-7.
Locally advanced cervical cancer is treated with chemoradiotherapy (standard of care), but many patients still relapse and die from metastatic disease. We investigated chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy to determine whether induction chemotherapy improves both progression-free survival and overall survival.The INTERLACE trial was a multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial done at 32 medical centres in Brazil, India, Italy, Mexico, and the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO 2008 stage IB1 disease with nodal involvement, or stage IB2, IIA, IIB, IIIB, or IVA disease) were randomly assigned (1:1), by minimisation, using a central electronic system, to standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (once-a-week intravenous cisplatin 40 mg/m for 5 weeks with 45·0-50·4 Gy external beam radiotherapy delivered in 20-28 fractions plus brachytherapy to achieve a minimum total 2 Gy equivalent dose of 78-86 Gy) alone or induction chemotherapy (once-a-week intravenous carboplatin area under the receiver operator curve 2 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m for 6 weeks) followed by standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy. Stratification factors were recruiting site, stage, nodal status, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, age, tumour size, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival within the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01566240, and EUDRACT, 2011-001300-35.Between Nov 8, 2012, and Nov 17, 2022, 500 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the chemoradiotherapy alone group (n=250) or the induction chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy group. Of 500 patients, 354 (70%) had stage IIB disease and 56 (11%) stage IIIB disease. Pelvic lymph nodes were positive in 215 (43%) patients. 230 (92%) patients who received induction chemotherapy had at least five cycles. Median interval between induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was 7 days. Four or more cycles of cisplatin were given to 212 (85%) participants in the induction chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy group and to 224 (90%) of participants in the chemoradiotherapy alone group. 462 (92%) participants received external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy with a median overall treatment time of 45 days. After a median follow-up of 67 months, 5-year progression-free survival rates were 72% in the induction chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy group and 64% in the chemoradiotherapy alone group with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·65 (95% CI 0·46-0·91, p=0·013). 5-year overall survival rates were 80% in the induction chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy group and 72% in the chemoradiotherapy alone group, with an HR of 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·91, p=0·015). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 147 (59%) of 250 individuals in the induction chemotherapy with chemoradiotherapy group versus 120 (48%) of 250 individuals in the chemoradiotherapy alone group.Short-course induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.Cancer Research UK and University College London-University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
[10]
Monk BJ, Colombo N, Tewari KS, et al. First-line pembrolizumab+chemotherapy versus placebo + chemotherapy for persistent,recurrent,or metastatic cervical cancer:final overall survival results of KEYNOTE-826[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2023, 41(36):5505-5511. DOI:10.1200/JCO.23.00914.
[11]
Oaknin A, Gladieff L, Martínez-García J, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for metastatic,persistent,or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc):a randomised,open-label,phase 3 trial[J]. Lancet, 2024, 403(10421):31-43. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02405-4.
The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone.In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing.Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab.Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option.F Hoffmann-La Roche.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[12]
Wu X, Sun Y, Yang H, et al. Cadonilimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab as first-line treatment for persistent,recurrent,or metastatic cervical cancer (COMPASSION-16):a randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in China[J]. Lancet, 2024, 404(10463):1668-1676. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02135-4.
[13]
中国抗癌协会宫颈癌专业委员会. 子宫颈癌免疫检查点抑制剂临床应用指南(2024年版)[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2024, 40(7):712-719. DOI:10.19538/j.fk2024070111.
[14]
Markham A. Tisotumab vedotin:first approval[J]. Drugs, 2021, 81(18):2141-2147. DOI:10.1007/s40265-021-01633-8.
[15]
Vergote I, González-Martín A, Fujiwara K, et al. Tisotumab vedotin as second-or third-line therapy for recurrent cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med 2024, 391(1):44-55. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2313811.
[16]
吴令英, 陈丽宏, 李大鹏, 等. 维替索妥尤单抗对比化疗治疗系统性治疗期间或之后疾病进展的复发或转移性宫颈癌:3 期 innovaTV 301 试验的预设中国亚组分析[C]. 济南:第28届中国临床肿瘤学会(CSCO)学术年会, 2025.
[17]
陈春林, 毛东瑞, 陈晓林, 等. 子宫颈癌诊治规范化中的个体化[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2026, 42(1):19-24.DOI:10.19538/j.fk2026010105.
[18]
吴乙时, 陈彦东, 崔满华, 等. 多模态协同“一站式”子宫颈癌医防融合体系的建设和临床应用[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2025, 41(10):1034-1038.DOI:10.19538/j.fk2025100116.

Footnotes

利益冲突 所有参与本研究的人员均声明不存在利益冲突

北京整合医学学会发起并为研究的顺利开展提供关键支持与保障

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China(82573397)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(82303860)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(82503446)
Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation Natural Science Fund(2024A1515013255)
Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation Natural Science Fund(2023A1515010033)
Guangzhou Clinical High-tech, Major and Featured Technology Project(2026P-TS003)
PDF(2075 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/