Independent prognostic factors in endometrial cancer: a single institution review

• Authors: P. Uharček , M. Mlynček , J. Ravinger , E. Lajtman , M. Matejka
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of this study was to conduct a clinical and pathologic review of endometrial cancers diagnosed and surgically treated in our institution to evaluate results of treatment in relation to current international recommendations. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical history, treatment and follow-up of patients with histologically confirmed endometrial cancer treated in Faculty Hospital Nitra, Slovakia from 1990 to 2005. Data were abstracted regarding tumor histology, grade, age, parity, stage, diabetes, use of oral contraceptives, BMI, survival and treatment modalities including surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and combinations thereof. One hundred and thirty nine patients received surgical treatment for endometrial cancer: stage I -101 (72,6%), stage II - 9 (6,5%), stage III - 23 (16,6%) and stage IV - 6 (4,3%). Tumors were well differentiated in 87(62,6%), moderately differentiated in 32 (23%) and poorly differentiated in 20 (14,4%). There were 45 (32,4%) premenopausal patients and 94 (67,6%) postmenopausal. In multivariate statistical analysis we identified FIGO stage, tumor type, tumor grade, nodal status and depth of myometrial invasion as independent prognostic factors for overall survival, and FIGO stage, nodal status, and tumor grade as independent prognostic factors for recurrence-free interval.

Keywords

EN

Endometrial cancer; Prognostic factors; Survival

• Publisher: De Gruyter Open
• Journal: Open Medicine
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 294-299

Dates

published

1 - 6 - 2011

online

8 - 4 - 2011

Contributors

author

P. Uharček

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Hospital Nitra, 949 01, Nitra, Slovakia

author

M. Mlynček

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Hospital Nitra, 949 01, Nitra, Slovakia

author

J. Ravinger

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Hospital Nitra, 949 01, Nitra, Slovakia

author

E. Lajtman

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Hospital Nitra, 949 01, Nitra, Slovakia

author

M. Matejka

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Hospital Nitra, 949 01, Nitra, Slovakia

References

• [1] Uharcek P, Mlyncek M, Ravinger J. Surgical management of endometrial cancer in Slovak Republic. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32(1):94–7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2005.09.005[Crossref]
• [2] Shepherd JH. Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. Brit J Obstet Gynaec 1989;96:889–92 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03341.x[Crossref]
• [3] Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical-pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:825–32
• [4] Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer (a GOG study). Cancer 1987;60:2035–41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19901015)60:8+<2035::AID-CNCR2820601515>3.0.CO;2-8[Crossref]
• [5] Barakat RR, Park RC, Grigsby PW, Muss HD, Norris HJ. Corpus: epithelial tumors. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC, (eds). Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. ed 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997: 859–896
• [6] Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman, RJ, et al.: Relationship between surgical-pathologic risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 1991; 40: 55–65 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-8258(91)90086-K[Crossref]
• [7] Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012[Crossref][WoS]
• [8] Prat J. Prognostic parameters of endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2004;35:649–662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2004.02.007[Crossref]
• [9] Mammoliti S, Bruzzone M, Chiara S. Clinical stage I and II endometrial carcinoma: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Anticancer Res 1992;12:1415–1418
• [10] Ju W, Myung SK, Kim Y, Choi HJ, Kim SC.: Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy for management of endometrial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2009;19(3):400–406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a1caf8[Crossref]
• [11] Gambrell RD, Bagnell CA, Greenblatt RB. Role of estrogens and progesterone in etiology and prevention of endometrial cancer: review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 15:696–707
• [12] Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thurmond K, Thun MJ. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1625–1638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021423[Crossref]
• [13] Eifel PJ, Ross J, Hendrickson M, Cox RS, Kempson R, Martinez A. Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer 1983;52:1026–1031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19830915)52:6<1026::AID-CNCR2820520617>3.0.CO;2-3[Crossref]
• [14] Steiner E, Eicher O, Sagemüller J, Schmidt M, Pilch H, Tanner B, Hengstler JG, Hofmann M, Knapstein PG. Multivariate independent prognostic factors in endometrial carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study in 181 patients: 10 years experience at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Mainz University. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13(2):197–203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13021.x[Crossref]
• [15] Tabernero LM, Alonso MC, Ojeda B et al. Endometrial cancer stages I and II. Eur J Gynecol Oncol 1995;16:18–25
• [16] Ayhan A, Tuncer R, Tuncer Z, Yuce K, Kucukali T. Correlation between clinical and histopathologic risk factors and lymph node metastases in early endometrial cancer (a multivariate analysis of 183 cases) International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer 1994;4: 306–309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.1994.04050306.x[Crossref]
• [17] ASTEC study group, 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(9658):125–136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61766-3[WoS][Crossref]
• [18] Corn BW, Lanciano RM, D’agostino R, Kiggundu E, Dunton CJ, Purser P, et al. The relationship of local and distant failure from endometrial cancer: defining a clinical paradigm. Gynecol Oncol 1997;66:411–416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1997.4796[Crossref]
• [19] Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, Aletti G, Podratz KC. Endometrial cancer: predictors of peritoneal failure. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:236–242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00052-0[Crossref]
• [20] Kuoppala T, Mäenpää J, Tomas E, Puistola U, Salmi T, Grenman S, et al. Surgically staged high-risk endometrial cancer: randomized study of adjuvant radiotherapy alone vs. sequential chemoradiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol 2008;110:190–195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.03.020[Crossref]
• [21] Fujimoto T, Nanjyo H, Fukuda J, Nakamura A, Mizunuma H, Yaegashi N, Sugiyama T, Kurachi H, Sato A, Tanaka T. Endometrioid uterine cancer: histopathological risk factors of local and distant recurrence. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(2):342–347 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.019[WoS][Crossref]
• [22] Chan JK, Cheung MK, Huh WK, Osann K, Husain A, Teng NN, et al. Therapeutic role of lymph node resection in endometrial corpus cancer. Cancer 2006;107:1823–1830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22185[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s11536-011-0007-3