BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised their 1988 staging system for uterine leiomyosarcomas. In this article, we compare performance of the 2008 and 1988 FIGO systems. METHODS: Individual case data were manually culled. Staging was retrospectively assessed according to revised and 1998 FIGO criteria. Overall survival distribution was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Harrell's concordance index was used to assess the discriminative ability of a fitted Cox model to predict overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 110 cases of uterine leiomyosarcomas were reviewed and data from 88 patients were analyzed. In all, 71% of cases were classified as stage I, 7% as stage II, 3% as stage III, and 19% as stage IV under the revised FIGO staging system. Nine patients (10.2%) were downstaged and none were upstaged. The revised FIGO system did not show a significant improvement over the 1988 FIGO system in the ability to discriminate the risk of death of patients between stages, with concordance indexes of 0.70 and 0.71, respectively. Most patients were classified as stage I with age, tumor grade, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion as prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The 2008 revised FIGO staging system for uterine leiomyosarcomas does not perform better than the 1988 system for uterine endometrial carcinomas. A better staging system is needed for these cases.
BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) revised their 1988 staging system for uterine leiomyosarcomas. In this article, we compare performance of the 2008 and 1988 FIGO systems. METHODS: Individual case data were manually culled. Staging was retrospectively assessed according to revised and 1998 FIGO criteria. Overall survival distribution was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Harrell's concordance index was used to assess the discriminative ability of a fitted Cox model to predict overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 110 cases of uterine leiomyosarcomas were reviewed and data from 88 patients were analyzed. In all, 71% of cases were classified as stage I, 7% as stage II, 3% as stage III, and 19% as stage IV under the revised FIGO staging system. Nine patients (10.2%) were downstaged and none were upstaged. The revised FIGO system did not show a significant improvement over the 1988 FIGO system in the ability to discriminate the risk of death of patients between stages, with concordance indexes of 0.70 and 0.71, respectively. Most patients were classified as stage I with age, tumor grade, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion as prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The 2008 revised FIGO staging system for uterine leiomyosarcomas does not perform better than the 1988 system for uterine endometrial carcinomas. A better staging system is needed for these cases.
Authors: A Gadducci; F Landoni; E Sartori; P Zola; T Maggino; A Lissoni; L Bazzurini; R Arisio; C Romagnolo; R Cristofani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Oliver Zivanovic; Lindsay M Jacks; Alexia Iasonos; Mario M Leitao; Robert A Soslow; Emanuela Veras; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Richard R Barakat; Murray F Brennan; Martee L Hensley Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K Mayerhofer; A Obermair; G Windbichler; E Petru; A Kaider; L Hefler; K Czerwenka; S Leodolter; C Kainz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vera M Abeler; Odd Røyne; Steinar Thoresen; Håvard E Danielsen; Jahn M Nesland; Gunnar B Kristensen Journal: Histopathology Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.087