FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023

Jonathan S Berek, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, David Gaffney, Sean Kehoe, Kristina Lindemann, David Mutch, Nicole Concin, Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women's Cancer Committee, Jonathan S Berek, Sarikapan Wilailak, Sean Kehoe, Rose Anorlu, Joanna Cain, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, Gerhard Lindeque, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Orla McNally, David Mutch, Aikou Okamoto, Rene Pareja, Tali Pomerantz, Giovanni Scambia, Barbara Schmalfeld, Muna Addulrazak Tahlak, Jonathan Berek, Nicole Concin, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, David Gaffney, Sean Kehoe, Kristina Lindemann, Xavier Matias-Guiu, David Mutch, Jonathan S Berek, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, David Gaffney, Sean Kehoe, Kristina Lindemann, David Mutch, Nicole Concin, Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women's Cancer Committee, Jonathan S Berek, Sarikapan Wilailak, Sean Kehoe, Rose Anorlu, Joanna Cain, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, Gerhard Lindeque, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Orla McNally, David Mutch, Aikou Okamoto, Rene Pareja, Tali Pomerantz, Giovanni Scambia, Barbara Schmalfeld, Muna Addulrazak Tahlak, Jonathan Berek, Nicole Concin, Carien Creutzberg, Christina Fotopoulou, David Gaffney, Sean Kehoe, Kristina Lindemann, Xavier Matias-Guiu, David Mutch

Abstract

Introduction: Many advances in the understanding of the pathologic and molecular features of endometrial cancer have occurred since the FIGO staging was last updated in 2009. Substantially more outcome and biological behavior data are now available regarding the several histological types. Molecular and genetic findings have accelerated since the publication of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data and provide improved clarity on the diverse biological nature of this collection of endometrial cancers and their differing prognostic outcomes. The goals of the new staging system are to better define these prognostic groups and create substages that indicate more appropriate surgical, radiation, and systemic therapies.

Methods: The FIGO Women's Cancer Committee appointed a Subcommittee on Endometrial Cancer Staging in October 2021, represented by the authors. Since then, the committee members have met frequently and reviewed new and established evidence on the treatment, prognosis, and survival of endometrial cancer. Based on these data, opportunities for improvements in the categorization and stratification of these factors were identified in each of the four stages. Data and analyses from the molecular and histological classifications performed and published in the recently developed ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines were used as a template for adding the new subclassifications to the proposed molecular and histological staging system.

Results: Based on the existing evidence, the substages were defined as follows: Stage I (IA1): non-aggressive histological type of endometrial carcinoma limited to a polyp or confined to the endometrium; (IA2) non-aggressive histological types of endometrium involving less than 50% of the myometrium with no or focal lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) as defined by WHO criteria; (IA3) low-grade endometrioid carcinomas limited to the uterus with simultaneous low-grade endometrioid ovarian involvement; (IB) non-aggressive histological types involving 50% or more of the myometrium with no LVSI or focal LVSI; (IC) aggressive histological types, i.e. serous, high-grade endometrioid, clear cell, carcinosarcomas, undifferentiated, mixed, and other unusual types without any myometrial invasion. Stage II (IIA): non-aggressive histological types that infiltrate the cervical stroma; (IIB) non-aggressive histological types that have substantial LVSI; or (IIC) aggressive histological types with any myometrial invasion. Stage III (IIIA): differentiating between adnexal versus uterine serosa infiltration; (IIIB) infiltration of vagina/parametria and pelvic peritoneal metastasis; and (IIIC) refinements for lymph node metastasis to pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, including micrometastasis and macrometastasis. Stage IV (IVA): locally advanced disease infiltrating the bladder or rectal mucosa; (IVB) extrapelvic peritoneal metastasis; and (IVC) distant metastasis. The performance of complete molecular classification (POLEmut, MMRd, NSMP, p53abn) is encouraged in all endometrial cancers. If the molecular subtype is known, this is recorded in the FIGO stage by the addition of "m" for molecular classification, and a subscript indicating the specific molecular subtype. When molecular classification reveals p53abn or POLEmut status in Stages I and II, this results in upstaging or downstaging of the disease (IICmp53abn or IAmPOLEmut ).

Summary: The updated 2023 staging of endometrial cancer includes the various histological types, tumor patterns, and molecular classification to better reflect the improved understanding of the complex nature of the several types of endometrial carcinoma and their underlying biologic behavior. The changes incorporated in the 2023 staging system should provide a more evidence-based context for treatment recommendations and for the more refined future collection of outcome and survival data.

Keywords: FIGO cancer staging; FIGO endometrial cancer staging; cancer staging; endometrial cancer; endometrial cancer molecular staging.

© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

References

REFERENCES

    1. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Female Genital Tumours, WHO Classification of Tumours. Vol 4. 5th ed. IARC Press; 2020.
    1. Barlin JN, Soslow RA, Lutz M, et al. Redefining stage I endometrial cancer: incorporating histology, a binary grading system, myometrial invasion, and lymph node assessment. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(9):1620-1628.
    1. Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN, et al. Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(5):561-568.
    1. Jamieson A, Huvila J, Chiu D, et al. Grade and estrogen receptor expression identify a subset of no specific profile endometrial carcinomas at a very low risk of disease specific death. Mod Pathol. 2023;36(4):100212. doi:10.1016/j.modpat.2022.100085
    1. Vermij L, Jobson JJ, Leon-Castillo A, et al. Prognostic refinement of NSMP high-risk endometrial cancers using oestrogen receptor immunohistochemistry. Brit J Cancer. 2023;128:1360-1368. doi:10.1038/s41416-023-02141-0
    1. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(1):16-41.
    1. Abeler VM, Kjørstad KE, Berle E. Carcinoma of the endometrium in Norway: a histopathological and prognostic survey of a total population. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1992;2(1):9-22.
    1. FIGO Committee on Gynecological Cancer. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix and endometrium. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105:103-104.
    1. Soslow RA, Tornos C, Park KJ, et al. Endometrial carcinoma diagnosis: use of FIGO grading and genomic subcategories in clinical practice: recommendations of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38(Suppl 1):S64-S74.
    1. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 1987;60(8 Suppl):2035-2041.
    1. Lindauer J, Fowler JM, Manolitsas TP, et al. Is there a prognostic difference between depth of myometrial invasion and the tumor-free distance from the uterine serosa in endometrial cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91(3):547-551.
    1. Schwab KV, O'Malley DM, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ, Cohn DE. Prospective evaluation of prognostic significance of the tumor-free distance from uterine serosa in surgically staged endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(1):146-149.
    1. Chattopadhyay S, Galaal KA, Patel A, et al. Tumour-free distance from serosa is a better prognostic indicator than depth of invasion and percentage myometrial invasion in endometrioid endometrial cancer. BJOG. 2012;119(10):1162-1170.
    1. Ozbilen O, Sakarya DK, Bezircioglu I, Kasap B, Yetimalar H, Yigit S. Comparison of myometrial invasion and tumor free distance from uterine serosa in endometrial cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(2):519-522.
    1. Singh N, Hirschowitz L, Zaino R, et al. Pathologic prognostic factors in endometrial carcinoma (other than tumor type and grade). Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38(Suppl 1):S93-S113.
    1. Peters EEM, Bartosch C, McCluggage WG, et al. Reproducibility of lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) assessment in endometrial cancer. Histopathology. 2019;75(1):128-136.
    1. McCluggage WG. Pathologic staging of endometrial carcinomas: selected areas of difficulty. Adv Anat Pathol. 2018;25(2):71-84.
    1. Soslow RA. Practical issues related to uterine pathology: staging, frozen section, artifacts, and lynch syndrome. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(Suppl 1):S59-S77.
    1. Pifer PM, Bhargava R, Patel AK, et al. Is the risk of substantial LVSI in stage I endometrial cancer similar to PORTEC in the north American population? - a single-institution study. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(1):23-29.
    1. Krizova A, Clarke BA, Bernardini MQ, et al. Histologic artifacts in abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomy specimens: a blinded, retrospective review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(1):115-126.
    1. Bosse T, Peters EE, Creutzberg CL, et al. Substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) is a significant risk factor for recurrence in endometrial cancer-a pooled analysis of PORTEC 1 and 2 trials. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(13):1742-1750.
    1. Barnes EA, Martell K, Parra-Herran C, Taggar AS, Donovan E, Leung E. Substantial lymphovascular space invasion predicts worse outcomes in early-stage endometrioid endometrial cancer. Brachytherapy. 2021;20(3):527-535. doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2020.12.006
    1. Malpica A, Euscher ED, Hecht JL, et al. Endometrial carcinoma, grossing and processing issues: recommendations of the International Society of Gynecologic Pathologists. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38:S9-S24.
    1. McCluggage WG, Hirschowitz L, Wilson GE, et al. Significant variation in the assessment of cervical involvement in endometrial carcinoma: an interobserver variation study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(2):289-294.
    1. Zaino RJ, Abendroth C, Yemelyanova A, et al. Endocervical involvement in endometrial adenocarcinoma is not prognostically significant and the pathologic assessment of the pattern of involvement is not reproducible. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):83-87.
    1. Jobsen JJ, Naudin Ten Cate L, Lybeert ML, et al. Outcome of endometrial cancer stage IIIA with adnexa or serosal involvement only. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:962518. doi:10.1155/2011/962518
    1. Heitz F, Amant F, Fotopoulou C, et al. Synchronous ovarian and endometrial cancer-an international multicenter case-control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(1):54-60.
    1. Anglesio MS, Wang YK, Maassen M, et al. Synchronous endometrial and ovarian carcinomas: evidence of clonality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(6):djv428.
    1. Schultheis AM, Ng CK, De Filippo MR, et al. Massively parallel sequencing-based clonality analysis of synchronous endometrioid endometrial and ovarian carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(6):djv427.
    1. Concin N, Creutzberg CL, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2021;478:153-190.
    1. Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y, et al. The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(2):230-236.
    1. Turashvili G, Gómez-Hidalgo NR, Flynn J, et al. Risk-based stratification of carcinomas concurrently involving the endometrium and ovary. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):38-45.
    1. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, eds. Skin tumours. UICC TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 8th ed. Wiley; 2016.
    1. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(2):93-99. doi:10.3322/caac.21388
    1. Blakely M, Liu Y, Rahaman J, et al. Sentinel lymph node ultra-staging as a supplement for endometrial cancer intraoperative frozen section deficiencies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38(1):52-58.
    1. Euscher E, Sui D, Soliman P, et al. Ultrastaging of sentinel lymph nodes in endometrial carcinoma according to use of 2 different methods. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2018;37(3):242-251.
    1. Kim CH, Soslow RA, Park KJ, et al. Pathologic ultrastaging improves micrometastasis detection in sentinel lymph nodes during endometrial cancer staging. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(5):964-970.
    1. León-Castillo A, de Boer SM, Powell ME, et al. Molecular classification of the PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer: impact on prognosis and benefit from adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3388-3397. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00549
    1. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, et al. Cancer genome atlas research network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497:67-73.
    1. Piulats JM, Guerra E, Gil-Martín M, et al. Molecular approaches for classifying endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:200-207.
    1. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, et al. A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:299-310.
    1. Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, et al. Confirmation of ProMisE: a simple, genomics-based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2017;123:802-813.
    1. Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM, et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer-combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:4215-4224.
    1. León-Castillo A, Gilvazquez E, Nout R, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular characterisation of ‘multiple-classifier’ endometrial carcinomas. J Pathol. 2020;250:312-322.
    1. Vermij L, Smit V, Nout R, Bosse T. Incorporation of molecular characteristics into endometrial cancer management. Histopathology. 2020;76:52-63.
    1. Church DN, Stelloo E, Nout RA, et al. Prognostic significance of POLE proofreading mutations in endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(1):402.
    1. León-Castillo A, Britton H, McConechy MK, et al. Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma. J Pathol. 2020;250:323-335.
    1. Van Gool IC, Rayner E, Osse EM, et al. Adjuvant treatment for POLE proofreading domain mutant cancers: sensitivity to radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and nucleoside analogues. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:3197-3203.
    1. Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 2017;357:409-413.
    1. Reijnen C, Küsters-Vandevelde HVN, Prinsen CF, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency as a predictive marker for response to adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154:124-130.
    1. Mirza MR, Chase DM, Slomovitz BM, et al. Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:2145-2158. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2216334
    1. Eskander RN, Sill MW, Beffa L, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:2159-2170. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2302312
    1. Ouyang C, Frimer M, Hou LY, Wang Y, Goldberg GL, Hou JY. Malignant endometrial polyps in uterine serous carcinoma: the prognostic value of polyp size and lymphovascular invasion. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:524-528.
    1. Assem H, Rottmann D, Finkelstein A, et al. Minimal uterine serous carcinoma and endometrial polyp: a close clinicopathological relationship. Hum Pathol. 2021;118:1-8.
    1. Hui P, Kelly M, O'Malley DM, Tavassoli F, Schwartz PE. Minimal uterine serous carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 40 cases. Mod Pathol. 2005;18:75-82.
    1. Rabban JT, Zaloudek CJ. Minimal uterine serous carcinoma: current concepts in diagnosis and prognosis. Pathology. 2007;39:125-133.
    1. Xu H, Cui SS, Ran L, et al. Incidence of omental metastasis in uterine serous carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2022;51:102395.
    1. Prat J. Prognostic parameters of endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2004;35:649-662.
    1. Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS, Trovik J. Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(8):e353-e361.
    1. dos Reis R, Burzawa JK, Tsunoda AT, et al. Lymphovascular space invasion portends poor prognosis in low-risk endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1292-1299.
    1. Veade AE, Foote J, Ehrisman J, et al. Associations between lymphovascular space invasion, nodal recurrence, and survival in patients with surgical stage I endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17:80.
    1. Tortorella L, Restaino S, Zannoni GF, et al. Substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) as predictor of distant relapse and poor prognosis in low-risk early-stage endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2021;32(2):e11.
    1. Zhan X, Li L, Wu M, Lang J. The prognosis of stage IA synchronous endometrial endometrioid and ovarian carcinomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300:1045-1052.
    1. Matsuo K, Machida H, Frimer M, et al. Prognosis of women with stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer and synchronous stage I endometrioid ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;147:558-564.
    1. Yoneoka Y, Yoshida H, Ishikawa M, et al. Prognostic factors of synchronous endometrial and ovarian endometrioid carcinoma. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30(1):e7.
    1. Peters EEM, León-Castillo A, Smit VTHBM, et al. Defining substantial Lymphovascular space invasion in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2022;41(3):220-226. doi:10.1097/PGP.0000000000000806
    1. Stålberg K, Bjurberg M, Borgfeldt C, et al. Lymphovascular space invasion as a predictive factor for lymph node metastases and survival in endometrioid endometrial cancer - a Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(11):1628-1633. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2019.1643036
    1. Peters EEM, Léon-Castillo A, Hogdall E, et al. Substantial lymphovascular space invasion is an adverse prognostic factor in high-risk endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2022;41(3):227-234. doi:10.1097/PGP.0000000000000805
    1. Guntupalli SR, Zighelboim I, Kizer NT, et al. Lymphovascular space invasion is an independent risk factor for nodal disease and poor outcomes in endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gyn Oncol. 2012;124:31-35.
    1. de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(9):1273-1285. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30395-X
    1. Page BR, Pappas L, Cooke EW, Gaffney DK. Does the FIGO 2009 endometrial cancer staging system more accurately correlate with clinical outcome in different histologies? Revised staging, endometrial cancer, histology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(4):593-598. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182412ebd
    1. Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:12-39. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230
    1. Todo Y, Kato H, Okamoto K, Minobe S, Yamashiro K, Sakuragi N. Isolated tumor cells and micrometastases in regional lymph nodes in stage I to II endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016;27(1):e1. doi:10.3802/jgo.2016.27.e1
    1. Mueller JJ, Pedra Nobre S, Braxton K, et al. Incidence of pelvic lymph node metastasis using modern FIGO staging and sentinel lymph node mapping with Ultrastaging in surgically staged patients with Endometrioid and serous endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157(3):619-623. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.03.025
    1. St Clair CM, Eriksson AG, Ducie JA, et al. Low-volume lymph node metastasis discovered during sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):1653-1659. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-5040-z
    1. Bogani G, Mariani A, Paolini B, Ditto A, Raspagliesi F. Low-volume disease in endometrial cancer: the role of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(3):670-675. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.02.027
    1. Plante M, Stanleigh J, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Grégoire J. Isolated tumor cells identified by sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: does adjuvant treatment matter? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2):240-246. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.05.024
    1. Burg L, Timmermans M, van der Aa M, et al. Incidence and predictors of peritoneal metastases of gynecological origin: a population-based study in The Netherlands. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;31(5):1-12.
    1. Li H, Zhang R, Chen C, et al. Prognostic value of different metastatic sites for patients with FIGO stage IVB endometrial cancer after surgery: a SEER database analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122:941-948.
    1. Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2021;154:327-353. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.018
    1. Betella I, Fumagalli C, Rafaniello Raviele P, et al. A novel algorithm to implement the molecular classification according to the new ESGO/ESTRO/ESP 2020 guidelines for endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:993-1000. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2022-003480

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다