Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the impact of cervical invasion on lymph node metastasis in patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer?

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the presence of cervical invasion has altered the site of lymph node (LN) metastasis in stage IIIC endometrial cancer (EC) patients.

Methods

Fourty-six patients who had systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy surgery for EC and staged as IIIC were included in the study. Patients with cervical invasion were defined as Group A and patients without cervical invasion were defined as Group B. The groups were compared according to surgical-pathologic characteristics. Chi-square and Annova table test were used to examine the effect of cervical invasion on LN metastasis.

Results

The mean age of patients was 59 years (range 38–81) and tumor size was 47 mm (range 10–80). Twenty-three patients had cervical involvement (Group A) and 23 had no cervical metastasis (Group B). Groups were not different with regard to cell type, grade, depth of myometrial invasion, tumor size, adnexal involvement, peritoneal metastasis and lymphovascular space invasion. Among 46 patients obturator LN was the most involved site of LN metastasis, however, when there is cervical metastasis external iliac LN was found to be the most involved LN site. Patients without cervical invasion had 21.7% of external iliac LN metastasis while patients with cervical invasion had 60.9% of external iliac LN metastasis. Also, cervical invasion has increased the risk of pelvic LN and obturator LN involvement from 82.6 to 95.7% and 39.1 to 52.2%, respectively.

Conclusion

Cervical invasion may have an effect on lymphatic spread and change the site of metastatic LNs. Large prospective studies are needed to clarify the alteration of LN metastasis in cervix invaded EC patients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Announcements: FIGO (the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) stages: 1988 revision. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35: 125–126

  2. Creasman W (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105:109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watanabe Y, Aoki D, Kitagawa R et al (2007) Status of surgical treatment procedures for endometrial cancer in Japan: results of a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group survey. Gynecol Oncol 105:325–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes MN, Kilgore LC (2000) Complete surgical staging of early endometrial adenocarcinoma: optimizing patient outcomes. Semin Radiat Oncol 10:3–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Frumovitz M, Escobar P, Ramirez PT (2011) Minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:226–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Galli L et al (2000) Potential therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in node-positive endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 76:348–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN et al (1987) Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 60:2035–2041

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Karube Y, Fujimoto T et al (2010) Histopathological prognostic factors predicting para-aortic lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrioid uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 118:151–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nomura H, Aoki D et al (2006) Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting para-aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:799–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Yaegashi N, Ito K, Niikura H (2007) Lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: is paraaortic lymphadenectomy necessary? Int J Clin Oncol 12:176–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mariani A, Keeney GL et al (2004) Endometrial carcinoma: paraaortic dissemination. Gynecol Oncol 92:833–838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ et al (1991) Relationship between surgical–pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 40:55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M (2001) Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 51:15–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Petersen F (ed) (1991) Annual report of the results of treatment in gynecologic cancer, vol 20. Elsevier, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boente MP, Orandi YA, Yordan EL et al (1995) Recurrence patterns and complications in endometrial adenocarcinoma with cervical involvement. Ann Surg Oncol 2:138–144

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N et al (1999) Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer 85:1547–1554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Buchsbaum HJ (1979) Extrapelvic lymph node metastases in cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 133:814–824

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pelosi E, Arena V, Baudino B et al (2003) Pre-operative lymphatic mapping and intra-operative sentinel lymph node detection in early stage endometrial cancer. Nucl Med Commun 24:971–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Niikura H, Okamura C, Utsunomiya H et al (2004) Sentinel lymph node detection in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 92:669–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lelievre L, Camatte S, Le Frere-Belda M et al (2004) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in cervix and corpus uteri cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer 14:271–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Altgassen C, Pagenstecher J, Hornung D et al (2007) A new approach to label sentinel nodes in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 105:457–461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Frumovitz M, Bodurka DC, Broaddus RR et al (2007) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy inwomenwith high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 104:100–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL et al (2001) Role of wide/radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in endometrial cancer with cervical ınvolvement. Gynecol Oncol 83:72–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Gostout BS, Jones MB, Wilson TO, Podratz KC (2008) Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 109:11–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Watanabe Y, Satou T, Nakai H et al (2010) Evaluation of parametrial spread in endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 116:1027–1034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pristauz G, Winter R, Fischerauer E et al (2009) Can routine gynecologic examination contribute to the diagnosis of cervical involvement by primary endometrial cancer? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 30:497–499

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. JS Ferriss, W Brix, M Henretta et al. 2009 Extent of cervical involvement in endometrial cancer as a predictor of outcome. J Clin Oncol, ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). Vol 27, No 15S (20 May Supplement), 2009

  28. ASTEC study group, Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmer MK (2009) Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomized study. Lancet 373:125–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Barton DP, Naik R, Herod J (2009) Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC Trial): a randomized study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19:1465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Creasman WT, Mutch DE, Herzog TJ (2010) ASTEC lymphadenectomy and radiation therapy studies: are conclusions valid? Gynecol Oncol 116:293–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecologic Oncology Division, Zubeyde Hanim Women’s Health Research and Teaching Hospital, Etlik Street, Kecioren, 06010, Ankara, Turkey

    Taner Turan, Deniz Hızlı, Saynur Sarici Yılmaz, Burcu Gundogdu, Nurettin Boran, Gokhan Tulunay & M. Faruk Kose

  2. Pathology Division, Zubeyde Hanim Women’s Health Research and Teaching Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Ahmet Ozfuttu

Authors
  1. Taner Turan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deniz Hızlı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saynur Sarici Yılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Burcu Gundogdu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nurettin Boran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gokhan Tulunay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ahmet Ozfuttu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Faruk Kose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deniz Hızlı.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turan, T., Hızlı, D., Yılmaz, S.S. et al. What is the impact of cervical invasion on lymph node metastasis in patients with stage IIIC endometrial cancer?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1119–1124 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2030-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2030-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation