Gunjal Garg1, Feng Gao2, Jason D Wright3, Andrea R Hagemann4, David G Mutch4, Matthew A Powell4. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: gunjalgarg@yahoo.com. 2. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In light of the recent changes in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system, the objective of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology (PPC) among patients with early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 1988 and 2005. Only those patients with stage I/II endometrial cancer who had undergone a complete staging procedure (lymph-node removal) were included. Statistical analyses used Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier log rank, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 14,704 patients were identified: 14,219 with negative peritoneal cytology (NPC) and 485 with positive peritoneal cytology. More patients with PPC compared to those with NPC were diagnosed with high-risk factors such grade III disease (40.2% vs. 23.8%, p<0.0001), and unfavorable histologic types such as clear cell/serous carcinoma (17.5% vs. 7.5%, p=<0.0001) and carcinosarcoma (9.3% vs. 5.6%, p<0.0001). When compared to patients with negative peritoneal cytology, survival was significantly worse among patients with positive peritoneal cytology (p<0.0001): 5-year disease specific survival 95.1% vs. 80.8% in endometrioid adenocarcinoma; 78.0% vs. 50.4% in clear cell/serous cancer; and 64.7% vs. 32.3% in carcinosarcoma. After adjusting for other contributing factors in the multivariable model, PPC remained an independent predictor of poor survival (p<0.0001) in all histologic types examined. CONCLUSION: PPC is an independent risk factor in patients with early stage endometrial cancer. Although, no longer a part of the current FIGO staging criteria, peritoneal cytology status should still be considered for accurate risk-stratification of these patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: In light of the recent changes in the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system, the objective of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology (PPC) among patients with early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 1988 and 2005. Only those patients with stage I/II endometrial cancer who had undergone a complete staging procedure (lymph-node removal) were included. Statistical analyses used Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier log rank, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 14,704 patients were identified: 14,219 with negative peritoneal cytology (NPC) and 485 with positive peritoneal cytology. More patients with PPC compared to those with NPC were diagnosed with high-risk factors such grade III disease (40.2% vs. 23.8%, p<0.0001), and unfavorable histologic types such as clear cell/serous carcinoma (17.5% vs. 7.5%, p=<0.0001) and carcinosarcoma (9.3% vs. 5.6%, p<0.0001). When compared to patients with negative peritoneal cytology, survival was significantly worse among patients with positive peritoneal cytology (p<0.0001): 5-year disease specific survival 95.1% vs. 80.8% in endometrioid adenocarcinoma; 78.0% vs. 50.4% in clear cell/serous cancer; and 64.7% vs. 32.3% in carcinosarcoma. After adjusting for other contributing factors in the multivariable model, PPC remained an independent predictor of poor survival (p<0.0001) in all histologic types examined. CONCLUSION: PPC is an independent risk factor in patients with early stage endometrial cancer. Although, no longer a part of the current FIGO staging criteria, peritoneal cytology status should still be considered for accurate risk-stratification of these patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Laura J Havrilesky; Janiel M Cragun; Brian Calingaert; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Fidel A Valea; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson; Andrew Berchuck; John T Soper Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Christine M Lee; Brian M Slomovitz; Marilyn Greer; Sheena Sharma; Mary Ann Gregurich; Thomas Burke; Karen H Lu; Lois M Ramondetta Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Oliver Preyer; Andreas Obermair; Elisabeth Formann; Werner Schmid; Lewis C Perrin; Bruce G Ward; Alexander J Crandon; James L Nicklin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: T Kasamatsu; T Onda; N Katsumata; M Sawada; T Yamada; R Tsunematsu; K Ohmi; Y Sasajima; Y Matsuno Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-01-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Koji Matsuo; Shinya Matsuzaki; David J Nusbaum; Hiroko Machida; Yoshikazu Nagase; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright; Philipp Harter; Maximilian Klar Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Franziska Siegenthaler; Silke Johann; Sara Imboden; Nicolas Samartzis; Haiyan Ledermann-Liu; Dimitri Sarlos; Markus Eberhard; Michael D Mueller Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Koji Matsuo; David J Nusbaum; Shinya Matsuzaki; Erica J Chang; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright; Philipp Harter; Maximilian Klar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mark R Hopkins; Abby M Richmond; Georgina Cheng; Susan Davidson; Monique A Spillman; Jeanelle Sheeder; Miriam D Post; Saketh R Guntupalli Journal: JSLS Date: 2014 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172