Literature DB >> 22100838

Revision of FIGO surgical staging in 2009 for endometrial cancer validates to improve risk stratification.

H M J Werner1, J Trovik, J Marcickiewicz, S Tingulstad, A C Staff, F Amant, H B Salvesen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Correct staging is a cornerstone in cancer treatment. The FIGO surgical staging for endometrial cancer was revised in 2009. We have evaluated if the revision improved stratification with respect to prognosis in a large prospective multicenter setting.
METHODS: 1268 endometrial cancer patients have been prospectively recruited in the MoMaTEC study for the investigation of clinical and histopathological data.
RESULTS: Restaging from FIGO 88 to FIGO 09 criteria increased the number of stage I cases from 932 to 979. The majority of the non-endometrioid tumors, down-staged to FIGO 09 stage I, were of serous histology. One third of the patients classified as stage II tumors based on FIGO 88 criteria (FIGO88 IIA) were down-staged to FIGO 09 IA (53%) and FIGO 09 IB (47%). The histological subtype for these cases was mainly endometrioid (86.1%) and high/intermediate grade (77.7%). Patients with FIGO 88 stages IA, IB, IIA and IIIA with positive cytology only, showed similar survival. In Cox multivariate survival analysis adjusting for histopathological variables we found that the revised FIGO 09 criteria improved prognostication. For FIGO stage I patients the adjusted HR was 3.9 (p=0.01, CI 1.35-11.36) for FIGO IB compared to FIGO IA. The independent prognostic impact for the FIGO 09 staging was also confirmed in a subset analysis of patients not subjected to lymphadenectomy and for the endometrioid subgroup.
CONCLUSIONS: The FIGO 2009 staging system has improved prediction of prognosis, and is less complex, compared to earlier versions. Careful assessment of myometrial invasion seems particularly important for patients not subjected to lymphadenectomy. Copyright Â
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22100838     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.008

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


  13 in total

1.  miR-200a/miR-141 and miR-205 upregulation might be associated with hormone receptor status and prognosis in endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Ying Dong; Jing-Wen Si; Wen-Ting Li; Li Liang; Jian Zhao; Mei Zhou; Dong Li; Ting Li
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-03-01

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Preoperative tumor size at MRI predicts deep myometrial invasion, lymph node metastases, and patient outcome in endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Sigmund Ytre-Hauge; Jenny A Husby; Inger J Magnussen; Henrica M J Werner; Øyvind O Salvesen; Line Bjørge; Jone Trovik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Helga B Salvesen; Ingfrid S Haldorsen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.437

6.  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

Review 7.  What Is the Best Preoperative Imaging for Endometrial Cancer?

Authors:  Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Helga B Salvesen
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Are preoperative histology and MRI useful for classification of endometrial cancer risk?

Authors:  Noemie Body; Vincent Lavoué; Olivier De Kerdaniel; Fabrice Foucher; Sébastien Henno; Aurélie Cauchois; Bruno Laviolle; Marc Leblanc; Jean Levêque
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  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

10.  Evaluating L1CAM expression in human endometrial cancer using qRT-PCR.

Authors:  Sara Notaro; Daniel Reimer; Michaela Duggan-Peer; Heidi Fiegl; Annamarie Wiedermair; Julia Rössler; Peter Altevogt; Christian Marth; Alain Gustave Zeimet
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-06-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.