Literature DB >> 20966700

Comparative performance of the 2009 international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics' staging system for uterine corpus cancer.

Sharyn N Lewin1, Thomas J Herzog, Nicanor I Barrena Medel, Israel Deutsch, William M Burke, Xuming Sun, Jason D Wright.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a population-based analysis comparing the performance of the 1988 and 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging systems.
METHODS: Women with endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus treated between 1988 and 2006 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were analyzed. Women were classified based on 1988 and 2009 FIGO staging systems. Major changes in the 2009 system include: 1) classification of patients with stage IA and IB tumors as stage IA; 2) elimination of stage IIA; and 3) stratification of stage IIIC into pelvic nodes only (IIIC1) or paraaortic nodal (IIIC2) involvement. Survival and use of adjuvant therapy were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 81,902 women were identified. Based on the 1988 staging system, survival for stage IA was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90-91%) compared with 88.9% (95% CI 88-89%) for IB tumors. In the 2009 system, survival was 89.6% (95% CI 89-90%) for stage IA and 77.6% (95% CI 76-79%) for stage IB. The survival for FIGO 1988 stage IIA was superior to stage IC, whereas in the 2009 system, survival for stage II was inferior to all stage I patients. The newly defined stage IIIC substages are prognostically different. Survival for stage IIIC1 was 57.0% (95% CI 54-60%) compared with 49.4% (95% CI 46-53%) for stage IIIC2.
CONCLUSION: The 2009 FIGO staging system for uterine corpus cancer is highly prognostic. The reduction in stage I substages and the separation of stage III will further clarify important prognostic features. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20966700     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f39849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  64 in total

Review 1.  The emerging genomic landscape of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Matthieu Le Gallo; Daphne W Bell
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  Adjuvant carboplatin, paclitaxel, and vaginal cuff brachytherapy for stage III endometrial cancer: analysis of outcomes and patterns of recurrence based on pathologic characteristics.

Authors:  Melissa Rasar Young; Susan A Higgins; Elena Ratner; James B Yu; Sheida Mani; Dan-Arin Silasi; Masoud Azodi; Thomas Rutherford; Peter E Schwartz; Shari Damast
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  The expression and underlying angiogenesis effect of DPC4 and VEGF on the progression of cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  Yanni A; Ying Li; Shuping Zhao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.967

4.  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

5.  Preoperative PET/CT standardized FDG uptake values of pelvic lymph nodes as a significant prognostic factor in patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Hyun Hoon Chung; Gi Jeong Cheon; Hee Seung Kim; Jae Weon Kim; Noh-Hyun Park; Yong Sang Song
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Grade 1 Endometrioid Carcinoma With an Area of Serous Carcinoma Less than 5% Is More Aggressive than Stage IA Pure-type Grade 1 Endometrioid Carcinoma.

Authors:  Morikazu Miyamoto; Hitoshi Tsuda; Atsushi Sugiura; Tsunekazu Kita; Yoshitaka Kataoka; Kenji Ishii; Kazuya Kudo; Hiroko Matsuura; Hiroki Ishibashi; Hideki Iwahashi; Taira Hada; Rie Suzuki; Masashi Takano
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.155

7.  Patterns of FIRST recurrence of stage IIIC1 endometrial cancer with no PARAAORTIC nodal assessment.

Authors:  Alessia Aloisi; João Miguel Casanova; Jill H Tseng; Kristina A Seader; Nancy Thi Nguyen; Kaled M Alektiar; Vicky Makker; Sarah Chiang; Robert A Soslow; Mario M Leitao; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Elevated expression of RIT1 correlates with poor prognosis in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Fengjuan Xu; Su'an Sun; Shilan Yan; Hongling Guo; Miao Dai; Yincheng Teng
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-09-01

9.  Frequent mutations in the RPL22 gene and its clinical and functional implications.

Authors:  Akiva P Novetsky; Israel Zighelboim; Dominic M Thompson; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; Paul J Goodfellow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Endometrial cancer: preoperative staging using three-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T: a prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Masatoshi Hori; Tonsok Kim; Hiromitsu Onishi; Izumi Imaoka; Yuki Kagawa; Takamichi Murakami; Atsushi Nakamoto; Takashi Ueguchi; Mitsuaki Tatsumi; Takayuki Enomoto; Tadashi Kimura; Noriyuki Tomiyama
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.