Dominik Denschlag1, Uwe Ulrich, Günter Emons. 1. Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Hochtaunus-Kliniken Bad Homburg, D-61348 Bad Homburg, Germany. dominik.denschlag@hochtaunus-kliniken.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometrial carcinoma is the fourth most common type of cancer among women in Germany, with more than 11 000 newly diagnosed cases each year. The present lack of clarity about the optimal clinical management of these patients is due in part to inconsistencies in the scientific evidence and in part to recent modifications of the FIGO classification. In this article, the issues requiring clarification are presented and discussed. METHODS: This article is based on a selective review of the pertinent literature, including evidence-based guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Current scientific evidence does not support the screening of asymptomatic women. On the other hand, women with postmenopausal and acyclic bleeding should undergo histopathological evaluation, particularly if they have risk factors for endometrial cancer. The current FIGO classification divides endometrial cancer into stages depending on the findings at surgery. On the basis of risk stratification (e.g., by tumor stage and histological differentiation grade), women who are judged to be at high risk (FIGO Stage IB and above, Grade 3) should undergo not just hysterectomy and adnexectomy, but also systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Risk stratification also determines whether adjuvant radiotherapy should be given. The additional or alternative administration of chemotherapy is a particular consideration for women at high risk, although the pertinent clinical trials to date have yielded conflicting evidence on this point.
BACKGROUND:Endometrial carcinoma is the fourth most common type of cancer among women in Germany, with more than 11 000 newly diagnosed cases each year. The present lack of clarity about the optimal clinical management of these patients is due in part to inconsistencies in the scientific evidence and in part to recent modifications of the FIGO classification. In this article, the issues requiring clarification are presented and discussed. METHODS: This article is based on a selective review of the pertinent literature, including evidence-based guidelines and recommendations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Current scientific evidence does not support the screening of asymptomatic women. On the other hand, women with postmenopausal and acyclic bleeding should undergo histopathological evaluation, particularly if they have risk factors for endometrial cancer. The current FIGO classification divides endometrial cancer into stages depending on the findings at surgery. On the basis of risk stratification (e.g., by tumor stage and histological differentiation grade), women who are judged to be at high risk (FIGO Stage IB and above, Grade 3) should undergo not just hysterectomy and adnexectomy, but also systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Risk stratification also determines whether adjuvant radiotherapy should be given. The additional or alternative administration of chemotherapy is a particular consideration for women at high risk, although the pertinent clinical trials to date have yielded conflicting evidence on this point.
Authors: Andreas Müller; Falk C Thiel; Stefan P Renner; Mathias Winkler; Lothar Häberle; Matthias W Beckmann Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Marcus E Randall; Virginia L Filiaci; Hyman Muss; Nick M Spirtos; Robert S Mannel; Jeffrey Fowler; J Tate Thigpen; Jo Ann Benda Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R A Nout; V T H B M Smit; H Putter; I M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; J J Jobsen; L C H W Lutgens; E M van der Steen-Banasik; J W M Mens; A Slot; M C Stenfert Kroese; B N F M van Bunningen; A C Ansink; W L J van Putten; C L Creutzberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R Smith-Bindman; K Kerlikowske; V A Feldstein; L Subak; J Scheidler; M Segal; R Brand; D Grady Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-11-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James V Lacey; Mark E Sherman; Brenda B Rush; Brigitte M Ronnett; Olga B Ioffe; Máire A Duggan; Andrew G Glass; Douglas A Richesson; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Bryan Langholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Henry M Keys; James A Roberts; Virginia L Brunetto; Richard J Zaino; Nick M Spirtos; Jeffrey D Bloss; Andrew Pearlman; Mitchell A Maiman; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Thomas Papathemelis; S Scharl; K Kronberger; M Gerken; A Scharl; A Pauer; M Klinkhammer-Schalke Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Thomas Papathemelis; Dunja Hassas; Michael Gerken; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Anton Scharl; Michael P Lux; Mathias W Beckmann; Sophia Scharl Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 4.553
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