Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endometrial cancer: prognostic significance of risk classification based on pre-intraoperative findings

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to determine whether a pre-intraoperative prognostic classification of endometrial cancer (EC) patients may accurately predict prognosis.

Methods

Prognostic factors achievable before and during surgery (histotype, grade, myoinvasion, cervical spread, abdominal spread) were utilized to classify patients in low-risk (endometrial adenocarcinoma, grade 1–2, myoinvasion <50%, no evidence of abdominal spread), and in intermediate/high risk (serous papillary and clear cell, grade 3, myoinvasion >50%, cervical invasion, abdominal spread). Risk classification obtained pre-intraoperatively was compared with the classification obtained from definitive surgical-pathological assessment in 130 consecutive patients with EC treated with surgery.

Results

Pre-intraoperative risk assessment correctly identified risk classification in 125 (96%) patients; sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 98%, 94%, 94%, and 98%, respectively. Median follow-up was 38 months (range 6–93), and 14 (10%) patients relapsed (median time 14 months, range 3–60). Relative risk of relapse was higher in intermediate/high-risk patients with both classifications (pre-intraoperative RR 3.37, CI 0.99–11.5; surgical-pathological RR 4.56, CI 1.2–17.3). As regards survival 11 patients have died, 6 due to endometrial cancer and 5 due to intercurrent disease. Five-years DFS according to pre-intraoperative assessment was 89% and 71% for low-risk and intermediate high-risk patients (p = 0.028), respectively; according to definitive assessment was 91% and 70% for low-risk and intermediate/high-risk patients (p = 0.009), respectively.

Conclusion

This classification, giving an accurate risk and prognostic estimate with parameters routinely utilized in clinical practice, may help the surgeon when undertaking the decision to perform limited or extended surgical staging according to tumor and patient characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P et al (2006) Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynecol Obst 95:S105–S143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL et al (2000) Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary? Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1506–1519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN et al (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer 60S:2035–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman R et al (1991) Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stages I and II carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol Oncol 40:55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mariani A, Keeney GL, Aletti G (2004) Endometrial carcinoma: paraaortic dissemination. Gynecol Oncol 92:833–838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL (2003) Endometrial carcinoma: predictors of peritoneal failure. Gynecol Oncol 89:236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Creutzberg CL, Van Putten WL, Koper PC et al (2000) Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial PORTEC study group. Post operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet 355:1404–1411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Orr JW Jr, Holimon JL, Orr PF (1997) Stage I corpus cancer: is teletherapy necessary? Am J Obstet Gynecol 176:777–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bristow RE, Zerbe MJ, Rosenshein NB et al (2000) Stage IVB Endometrial Carcinoma: the role of cytoreductive surgery and determinants of survival. Gynecol Oncol 78:85–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holland CM (2008) The role of radical surgery in Carcinoma of endometrium. Clinical Oncol 20:448–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardesty L, Sumkin J, Nath M et al (2000) Use of preoperative MR imaging in the management of endometrial carcinoma: cost analysis. Radiology 215:45–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zerbe M, Bristow R, Grumbine F et al (2000) Inability of preoperative computed tomography scans to accurately predict the extent of myometrial invasion and extracorporal spread in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 78:67–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Traen K, Hølund B, Mogensen O (2007) Accuracy of preoperative tumor grade and intraoperative gross examination of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86:739–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frumovitz M, Singh DK, Meyer L et al (2004) Predictors of final histology in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 95:463–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Melpignano M et al (2000) Clinical value of intraoperative gross examination in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 76:357–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Egle D, Grissemann B, Zeimet AG et al (2008) Validation of intraoperative risk assessment on frozen section for surgical management of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 110:286–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Celik C, Ozdemir S, Esen H et al (2010) The clinical value of preoperative and intraoperative assessments in the management of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:358–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scully RE, Bonfiglio TA, Kurman RJ et al (1994) Histological typing of female genital tract tumours, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–18

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. FIGO (1989) News: corpus cancer staging. Int J Gynecol Obstet 28:19–20

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maneschi F, Nardi S, Sarno M et al (2008) Endometrial carcinoma: intraoperative evaluation of myometrial invasion A prospective study. Minerva Ginecol 60:267–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL et al (2004) A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 92:744–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan E, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leijon T, Rosenberg P, Boeryd B (1997) Total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: a sufficient treatment for patients with low risk endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 7:376–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Poulsen HK, Jacobsen M, Bertelsen K et al (1996) Adjuvant radiation therapy is not necessary in the management of endometrial carcinoma stage I, low-risk cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 6:38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lim P, Aquino-Parsons CF, Wong F et al (1999) Low-risk endometrial carcinoma: assessment of a treatment policy based on tumor ploidy and identification of additional prognostic indicators. Gynecol Oncol 73:191–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Larson DM, Broste SK, Krawisz BR (1998) Surgery without radiotherapy for primary treatment of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 91:355–359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gal D, Recio FO, Zamurovic D (1991) Lymphovascular space involvement: a prognostic indicator in endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 42:142–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Briët JM, Hollema H, Reesink N et al (2005) Lymphovascular space involvement: an independent prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 96:799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mariani A, Sebo TJ, Katzmann JA et al (2005) Endometrial cancer: can nodal status be predicted with curettage? Gynecol Oncol 96:594–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F et al (2008) Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1707–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Petru E, Lück HJ, Stuart G et al (2009) Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) proposals for changes of the current FIGO staging system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 143:69–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Orton J, Blake B (2009) Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in the treatment of endometrial cancer: results of the randomised MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTG EN5 trial. Lancet 373:137–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maggi R, Lissoni A, Spina F et al (2006) Adjuvant chemotherapy vs radiotherapy in high-risk endometrial carcinoma: results of a randomised trial. Br J Cancer 95:266–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chan JK, Urban R, Cheung MK et al (2007) Lymphadenectomy in endometrioid uterine cancer staging: how many lymph nodes are enough? A study of 11,443 patients. Cancer 109:2454–2460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cutillo G, Cignini P, Visca P et al (2007) Endometrial biopsy by means of the hysteroscopic resectoscope for the evaluation of tumor differentiation in endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:907–910

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, S. Maria Goretti Hospital, Via G. Reni, 04100, Latina, Italy

    Francesco Maneschi, Irene Ceccacci, Angela Perugini, Cristina Pane & Alessia Simeone

  2. Department of Pathology, S. Maria Goretti Hospital, Via G. Reni, 04100, Latina, Italy

    Annamaria Manicone

Authors
  1. Francesco Maneschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irene Ceccacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Perugini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cristina Pane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessia Simeone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Annamaria Manicone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Maneschi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maneschi, F., Ceccacci, I., Perugini, A. et al. Endometrial cancer: prognostic significance of risk classification based on pre-intraoperative findings. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 521–527 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2004-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2004-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation