Literature DB >> 21387282

Does the revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for endometrial cancer lead to increased discrimination in patient outcomes?

Ellen W Cooke1, Lisa Pappas, David K Gaffney.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent changes were made to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for endometrial cancer. The objective of this study was to compare survival outcomes for patients who were staged according to the 1988 FIGO staging system versus the 2009 FIGO staging system.
METHODS: Data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program for the years 1998 to 2006. Patients who had a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the uterus with complete staging information were included. Patients were staged according to the 1988 and 2009 FIGO staging systems, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were derived for cause-specific survival (CSS). Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify the factors associated with survival.
RESULTS: In total, 47,284 patients were included. The median follow-up was 37 months. The 5-year CSS rates for patients who had 2009 FIGO stage IA and IB disease were 96.6% and 89.9%, respectively (P < .0001). After accounting for age, grade, and race, this survival difference remained significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74-2.24; P < .0001). Patients who had 1988 FIGO stage IIA disease had a 5-year CSS rate similar to that of patients who had 1988 FIGO stage IC disease (88.6% vs 89.9%, respectively; P = .09). Patients who had positive pelvic washings had a 5-year CSS rate similar to that of patients who had stage IIIA disease according to the 2009 FIGO system (74.2% vs 72.1%, respectively; P = .37). The 5-year CSS rate for patients who had stage IIIC1 disease was significantly improved compared with that for patients who had stage IIIC2 disease (68.2% vs 57.3%, respectively; P < .0001). In the multivariate model, the survival difference remained (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.26-1.76; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The 2009 staging system for endometrial cancer produced better discrimination in CSS outcomes compared with the 1988 system.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21387282     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  8 in total

1.  The effect of lymphadenectomy and radiotherapy on recurrence and survival in endometrial carcinoma. Experience in a population reference centre.

Authors:  Meritxell Arenas; Marina Gascón; Àngels Rovirosa; Víctor Hernández; Francesc Riu; Iolanda López; Angel Montero; Sebastià Sabater
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2014-10-14

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype.

Authors:  Ulla-Maija Haltia; Ralf Bützow; Arto Leminen; Mikko Loukovaara
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.401

6.  Clinical outcomes of stage I endometrial carcinoma patients treated with surgery alone: Siriraj Hospital experiences.

Authors:  Suwanit Therasakvichya; Sompop Kuljarusnont; Janjira Petsuksiri; Pattama Chaopotong; Vuthinun Achariyapota; Pisutt Srichaikul; Atthapon Jaishuen
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 4.401

7.  Contemporary clinical management of endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Helen E Dinkelspiel; Jason D Wright; Sharyn N Lewin; Thomas J Herzog
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2013-06-24

8.  ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up.

Authors:  Nicoletta Colombo; Carien Creutzberg; Frederic Amant; Tjalling Bosse; Antonio González-Martín; Jonathan Ledermann; Christian Marth; Remi Nout; Denis Querleu; Mansoor Raza Mirza; Cristiana Sessa
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.437

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.