Literature DB >> 12079298

Assessment of prognostic factors in stage IIIA endometrial cancer.

Andrea Mariani1, Maurice J Webb, Gary L Keeney, Giacomo Aletti, Karl C Podratz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was the assessment of prognostic factors in stage IIIA endometrial cancer.
METHODS: Between 1984 and 1993, 51 patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer received definitive treatment at our institution. Thirty-seven patients had positive peritoneal cytologic findings only (stage IIIA1), and 14 had adnexal or uterine serosal involvement (USI) (stage IIIA2). Median follow-up of surviving patients was 82.5 months.
RESULTS: The 5-year disease-related survival (DRS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 88 and 73%, respectively. RFS was 79% in patients with stage IIIA1 disease, compared with 57% in patients with stage IIIA2 disease (P = 0.04). However, DRS did not significantly differ between stages IIIA1 and IIIA2. In the 37 patients with stage IIIA1 tumors, histologic grade 3, nonendometrioid histologic subtype, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) significantly predicted a poor prognosis, with extraabdominal sites of failure (P < 0.05). Of the 22 patients who had stage IIIA1 disease with endometrioid histologic subtype and without LVI, none had recurrence [17 had whole abdominal irradiation (WAR) or intraperitoneal injection of (32)P, 2 had pelvic external radiotherapy (PRT)]. By contrast, of the 15 patients with either nonendometrioid histologic subtype or LVI, 9 (60%) had recurrence and 7 (47%) died of disease (12 had WAR or (32)P). An extraabdominal component was present in 7 of the 9 recurrences observed in this subgroup. Among the 14 patients with stage IIIA2 tumors (6 had WAR, 6 had PRT), those with USI had a 5-year DRS of 83% and a rate of extraabdominal failure of 83%, compared with 100 and 12.5% in patients without USI (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer who have endometrioid tumors, no LVI, and positive peritoneal cytologic findings as the only sign of extrauterine disease have an excellent prognosis. Nonendometrioid histologic subtype, LVI, and USI are strong predictors of distant failures and poor prognosis. Patients with either of these histologic factors should be considered candidates for systemic adjuvant therapy. (c) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12079298     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2002.6713

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  17 in total

1.  Concomitant postoperative radiation and chemotherapy following surgery was associated with improved overall survival in patients with FIGO stages III and IV endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Kentaro Nakayama; Yutaka Nagai; Masako Ishikawa; Yoichi Aoki; Khoji Miyazaki
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Histologic grade and peritoneal cytology as prognostic factors in type 1 endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Kei Tanaka; Yoichi Kobayashi; Juri Sugiyama; Tatsuo Yamazaki; Kei Dozono; Momoe Watanabe; Hiromi Shibuya; Yoshiko Nishigaya; Mai Momomura; Hironori Matsumoto; Satoshi Umezawa; Kiyoshi Takamatsu; Mitsutoshi Iwashita
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 3.  Evolution of adjuvant treatment in endometrial cancer-no evidence and new questions?

Authors:  S Marnitz; C Köhler; N Gharbi; S Kunze; K Jablonska; J Herter
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Adjuvant Chemotherapy plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Daniela Matei; Virginia Filiaci; Marcus E Randall; David Mutch; Margaret M Steinhoff; Paul A DiSilvestro; Katherine M Moxley; Yong M Kim; Matthew A Powell; David M O'Malley; Nick M Spirtos; William Small; Krishnansu S Tewari; William E Richards; John Nakayama; Ursula A Matulonis; Helen Q Huang; David S Miller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Comparison of FIGO 1988 and 2009 staging systems for endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Melis Gultekin; Ferah Yildiz; Gokhan Ozyigit; Havva Beyaz; Mutlu Hayran; Faruk Kose; Kunter Yuce; Ali Ayhan
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.064

6.  Evaluation of prognostic factors and comparison of systemic treatment modalities in patients with recurrent or metastatic endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Hakan Karagol; Pinar Saip; Kazim Uygun; Seden Kucucuk; Adnan Aydiner; Erkan Topuz
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging.

Authors:  Andrea Mariani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Bobbie S Gostout; Monica B Jones; Timothy O Wilson; Karl C Podratz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  A comparison of uterine papillary serous, clear cell carcinomas, and grade 3 endometrioid corpus cancers using 2009 FIGO staging system.

Authors:  Ha-Jeong Kim; Tae-Joong Kim; Yoo-Young Lee; Chel Hun Choi; Jeong-Won Lee; Duk-Soo Bae; Byoung-Gie Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 4.401

9.  Outcome of Endometrial Cancer Stage IIIA with Adnexa or Serosal Involvement Only.

Authors:  Jan J Jobsen; Lambert Naudin Ten Cate; Marnix L M Lybeert; Astrid Scholten; Elzbieta M van der Steen-Banasik; Job van der Palen; Marika C Stenfert Kroese; Annerie Slot; Eltjo M J Schutter; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-05-04

10.  Prognostic discrimination of subgrouping node-positive endometrioid uterine cancer: location vs nodal extent.

Authors:  D S Kapp; T K Kiet; J K Chan
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.