Pratibha S Binder1, Jeffrey F Peipert2, D Kallogjeri3, Rebecca A Brooks4, L Stewart Massad5, David G Mutch5, Matthew A Powell5, Premal H Thaker5, Carolyn K McCourt5. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: binderp@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of endometrial cancer increases with age and is associated with medical comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes. Although a few cohort studies of <500 patients showed an association between comorbidity and survival in patients with endometrial cancer, the degree of association must be better described. The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 is a validated comorbidity instrument that provides a score of 0-3 based on the number of and severity of medical comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to explore the association between medical comorbidities and survival of patients with endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer from 2000-2012 were identified from the prospectively maintained Siteman Cancer Center tumor registry. Patients who underwent primary surgical treatment for endometrioid, serous, and clear cell endometrial carcinoma were included. Patients who primarily were treated with radiation, chemotherapy, or hormone therapy were excluded. Patients with uterine sarcomas or neuroendocrine tumors were excluded. Patients with missing Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 scores were also excluded from analysis. Information that included patient demographics, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score, tumor characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and survival data were extracted from the database. The association of Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 and overall and recurrence-free survival was explored in a multivariable Cox regression analysis after being controlled for variables that have been found to be associated significantly with survival in univariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2073 patients with a median age of 61 years (range, 20-94 years) at diagnosis were identified. The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score was 0, 1, 2, and 3 in 22%, 38%, 28%, and 12% of patients, respectively. Stage distribution was I (73%), II (5%), III (15%), and IV (7%), and grade distribution was 1 (52%), 2 (23%), and 3 (25%). Most patients had endometrioid histologic condition (87%) followed by serous (11%) and clear cell (3%) endometrial carcinoma. The median overall survival time for the entire cohort was 54 months (95% confidence interval, 3-154 months), and the median recurrence-free survival was 50 months (95% confidence interval, 2-154 months). On univariable analysis, age, race, marital status, stage, grade, histologic condition, and treatment type were associated significantly with overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After adjustment for these covariates, patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 2 had a 52% higher risk of death (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.00); patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 3 had a 2.35-fold increased risk of death (95% confidence interval, 1.73-3.21) compared with patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 0. Similarly, patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 2 had a 38% higher risk of recurrence (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.78); patients with Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 3 had a 2.05-fold increased risk of recurrence (95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.75) compared with patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 0. We found no interaction between Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score and age, stage, or treatment type. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the importance of comorbidities in the estimation of the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer, even after adjustment for age and known tumor-specific prognostic factors such as stage, grade, histologic condition, and adjuvant treatment. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: The incidence of endometrial cancer increases with age and is associated with medical comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes. Although a few cohort studies of <500 patients showed an association between comorbidity and survival in patients with endometrial cancer, the degree of association must be better described. The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 is a validated comorbidity instrument that provides a score of 0-3 based on the number of and severity of medical comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to explore the association between medical comorbidities and survival of patients with endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN:Patients who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer from 2000-2012 were identified from the prospectively maintained Siteman Cancer Center tumor registry. Patients who underwent primary surgical treatment for endometrioid, serous, and clear cell endometrial carcinoma were included. Patients who primarily were treated with radiation, chemotherapy, or hormone therapy were excluded. Patients with uterine sarcomas or neuroendocrine tumors were excluded. Patients with missing Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 scores were also excluded from analysis. Information that included patient demographics, Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score, tumor characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and survival data were extracted from the database. The association of Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 and overall and recurrence-free survival was explored in a multivariable Cox regression analysis after being controlled for variables that have been found to be associated significantly with survival in univariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2073 patients with a median age of 61 years (range, 20-94 years) at diagnosis were identified. The Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score was 0, 1, 2, and 3 in 22%, 38%, 28%, and 12% of patients, respectively. Stage distribution was I (73%), II (5%), III (15%), and IV (7%), and grade distribution was 1 (52%), 2 (23%), and 3 (25%). Most patients had endometrioid histologic condition (87%) followed by serous (11%) and clear cell (3%) endometrial carcinoma. The median overall survival time for the entire cohort was 54 months (95% confidence interval, 3-154 months), and the median recurrence-free survival was 50 months (95% confidence interval, 2-154 months). On univariable analysis, age, race, marital status, stage, grade, histologic condition, and treatment type were associated significantly with overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After adjustment for these covariates, patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 2 had a 52% higher risk of death (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.00); patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 3 had a 2.35-fold increased risk of death (95% confidence interval, 1.73-3.21) compared with patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 0. Similarly, patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 2 had a 38% higher risk of recurrence (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.78); patients with Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 3 had a 2.05-fold increased risk of recurrence (95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.75) compared with patients with an Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score of 0. We found no interaction between Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 score and age, stage, or treatment type. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the importance of comorbidities in the estimation of the prognosis of patients with endometrial cancer, even after adjustment for age and known tumor-specific prognostic factors such as stage, grade, histologic condition, and adjuvant treatment. Copyright Â
Authors: Pauline T Truong; Hosam A Kader; Barbara Lacy; Mary Lesperance; Mary V MacNeil; Eric Berthelet; Elissa McMurtrie; Skaria Alexander Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.339
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: Susan C Modesitt; Chunqiao Tian; Richard Kryscio; J Tate Thigpen; Marcus E Randall; Holly H Gallion; Gini F Fleming Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: William L Read; Ryan M Tierney; Nathan C Page; Irene Costas; Ramaswamy Govindan; Edward L J Spitznagel; Jay F Piccirillo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Subhjit Sekhon; L Stewart Massad; Andrea R Hagemann; Rebecca Dick; Andrea Leon; Abigail S Zamorano; Premal H Thaker; Carolyn K McCourt; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell; Lindsay M Kuroki Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2019-08-10
Authors: T S Lewis; J A Kennedy; G J Price; T Mee; D K Woolf; N A Bayman; C Chan; J H Coote; C Faivre-Finn; M A Harris; A M Hudson; L S Pemberton; A Salem; H Y Sheikh; H B Mistry; D C P Cobben Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Anna L Roberts; Abigail Fisher; Lee Smith; Malgorzata Heinrich; Henry W W Potts Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.442