OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk-scoring system (RSS) for the prediction of lymphatic dissemination after hysterectomy in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EC). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery from 1/1/1999-12/31/2008 were evaluated. Patients with non-endometrioid histology, stage IV with macroscopic extrauterine disease, or receiving adjuvant therapy (excluding brachytherapy) without pelvic and/or paraaortic (P/PA) lymphadenectomy (LND) were excluded. Lymph node dissemination was defined as nodal metastasis when P/PA LND was performed or P/PA lymph node recurrence after negative LND or when LND was not performed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for lymphatic dissemination and develop a RSS and nomogram. The RSS was assessed for calibration and verified for discrimination. RESULTS: Overall, 883 patients were assessed of which 521 (59.0%) underwent P/PA LND and 57 (10.9%) had positive lymph nodes. Of patients who did not undergo P/PA LND (N=362) or had negative nodes (N=464), 10 (1.2%) patients had P/PA lymph node recurrence. Myometrial invasion, tumor diameter (TD), FIGO grade, cervical stromal invasion and lymphovascular space invasion were significant on univariable analysis. All preceding variables were included in a multivariable logistic model. A parsimonious model and an alternative full model not including TD were considered. The full model with TD (illustrated in nomogram) had the highest predictive ability (concordance index 0.88). CONCLUSION: Our RSS allows accurate quantification of the probability of lymphatic dissemination and can be used as an adjunct to clinical decision-making after hysterectomy in the absence of staging. TD is an important component of the RSS and should be routinely assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk-scoring system (RSS) for the prediction of lymphatic dissemination after hysterectomy in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EC). METHODS:Patients who underwent surgery from 1/1/1999-12/31/2008 were evaluated. Patients with non-endometrioid histology, stage IV with macroscopic extrauterine disease, or receiving adjuvant therapy (excluding brachytherapy) without pelvic and/or paraaortic (P/PA) lymphadenectomy (LND) were excluded. Lymph node dissemination was defined as nodal metastasis when P/PA LND was performed or P/PA lymph node recurrence after negative LND or when LND was not performed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for lymphatic dissemination and develop a RSS and nomogram. The RSS was assessed for calibration and verified for discrimination. RESULTS: Overall, 883 patients were assessed of which 521 (59.0%) underwent P/PA LND and 57 (10.9%) had positive lymph nodes. Of patients who did not undergo P/PA LND (N=362) or had negative nodes (N=464), 10 (1.2%) patients had P/PA lymph node recurrence. Myometrial invasion, tumor diameter (TD), FIGO grade, cervical stromal invasion and lymphovascular space invasion were significant on univariable analysis. All preceding variables were included in a multivariable logistic model. A parsimonious model and an alternative full model not including TD were considered. The full model with TD (illustrated in nomogram) had the highest predictive ability (concordance index 0.88). CONCLUSION: Our RSS allows accurate quantification of the probability of lymphatic dissemination and can be used as an adjunct to clinical decision-making after hysterectomy in the absence of staging. TD is an important component of the RSS and should be routinely assessed.
Authors: Yushen Qian; Erqi L Pollom; Chika Nwachukwu; Kira Seiger; Rie von Eyben; Ann K Folkins; Elizabeth A Kidd Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anthony B Costales; Kathleen M Schmeler; Russell Broaddus; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Natalia R Gómez-Hidalgo; Ling Chen; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Matthew M Harkenrider; Alec M Block; Kaled M Alektiar; David K Gaffney; Ellen Jones; Ann Klopp; Akila N Viswanathan; William Small Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Giorgio Bogani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Fabio Ghezzi; Diego Rossetti; Andrea Mariani Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: Ashley S Felix; D Scott McMeekin; David Mutch; Joan L Walker; William T Creasman; David E Cohn; Shamshad Ali; Richard G Moore; Levi S Downs; Olga B Ioffe; Kay J Park; Mark E Sherman; Louise A Brinton Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S Bendifallah; G Canlorbe; P Collinet; E Arsène; F Huguet; C Coutant; D Hudry; O Graesslin; E Raimond; C Touboul; E Daraï; M Ballester Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.640