Nodal metastasis risk in endometrioid endometrial cancer

Michael R Milam, James Java, Joan L Walker, Daniel S Metzinger, Lynn P Parker, Robert L Coleman, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Michael R Milam, James Java, Joan L Walker, Daniel S Metzinger, Lynn P Parker, Robert L Coleman, Gynecologic Oncology Group

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the risk for nodal metastasis in women with endometrial cancer based on uterine characteristics on pathology.

Methods: From a study of staging for uterine cancer, women were identified as being at low risk for nodal metastasis based on three specific criteria on final pathology reports: 1) less than 50% invasion, 2) tumor size less than 2 cm, and 3) well or moderately differentiated endometrioid histology. If the uterine specimen did not meet all three criteria, it was viewed as high risk for nodal metastasis.

Results: Nine hundred seventy-one women were included in this analysis. Approximately 40% (or 389 of 971) of patients in this study were found to be at low risk, with a rate of nodal metastasis of only 0.8% (3 of 389; exact 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-2.2). No statistical differences in median age, body mass index, race, performance status, missing clinical data, or open or minimally invasive techniques were found among the patients with and without nodal metastases. Patients with high-risk characteristics of their uterine specimens compared with those with low-risk characteristics have 6.3 times the risk of nodal metastasis (95% CI 1.67-23.8, P=.007).

Conclusion: Low-risk endometrioid uterine cancer criteria may be used to help guide treatment planning for reoperation in patients with incomplete surgical staging information.

Level of evidence: II.

Conflict of interest statement

Financial Disclosure: The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of patients through study
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of logistic model.

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.
    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;60:2035–2041.
    1. Schink JC, Lurain JR, Wallemark CB, Chmiel JS. Tumor size in endometrial cancer: a prognostic factor for lymph node metastasis. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70:216–219.
    1. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, et al. Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1506–1519.
    1. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:11–18.
    1. Convery PA, Cantrell LA, DiSanto N, et al. Retrospective review of an intraoperative algorithm to predict lymph node metastasis in low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:65–70.
    1. ACOG practice bulletin, clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005: management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:413–425.
    1. Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, Silverberg S, Lim PC, Burke JJ, 2nd, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2006;106:812–819.
    1. Chan JK, Wu H, Cheung MK, Shin JY, Osann K, Kapp DS. The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:282–288.
    1. Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, Osann K, Husain A, Teng NN, et al. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrioid corpus cancer: a study of 12,333 patients. Cancer. 2006;107:1823–1830.
    1. Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009;373:125–136.
    1. Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:1165–1172.
    1. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331–5336.
    1. Fox J, Monette G. General collinearity diagnostics. JASA. 1992;87:178–183.
    1. Team RDC. Computing RFfS. Vienna, Austria: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. ed. (vol 2009)
    1. Lee KB, Ki KD, Lee JM, Lee JK, Kim JW, Cho CH, et al. The risk of lymph node metastasis based on myometrial invasion and tumor grade in endometrioid uterine cancers: a multicenter, retrospective Korean study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2882–2887.
    1. Leitano MM, Jr, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektiar K, Gattoc LP, Rabitt C, et al. Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis of FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:244–248.
    1. Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Spannuth W, Greer MJ, Sharma S, Schmeler KM, et al. Lymphadenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:291–294.
    1. Huang M, Chadha M, Musa F, et al. Lymph nodes: is total number or station number a better predictor of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:295–298.
    1. Lutman CV, Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, et al. Pelvic lymph node count is an important prognostic variable for FIGO stage I and II endometrial carcinoma with high-risk histology. Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Ellis Fischel Cancer Center: 92–7.
    1. Milam MR, Abaid L, dos Reis R, et al. Microscopic evaluation of lymph-node-bearing tissue in early-stage cervical cancer: a dual-institution review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1106–1110.
    1. Chan JK, Urgan R, Cheung MK, et al. Lymphadenectomy in endometrioid uterine cancer staging: how many lymph nodes are enough? A study of 11,443 patients. Cancer. 2007;109:2454–2460.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다