Literature DB >> 28333843

Does Obesity Affect Pathologic Agreement of Initial and Final Tumor Grade of Disease in Endometrial Cancer Patients?

Laura R Daily1, Jonathan D Boone, Hannah C Machemehl, Eric D Thomas, Gerald McGwin, J Michael Straughn, Charles A Leath.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare preoperative and postoperative tumor grade to determine if surgical staging decisions for endometrial cancer based on preoperative biopsy are feasible and whether obesity affects the agreement.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of women with endometrial cancer between January 2010 and December 2011 was performed. Demographics, stage of final pathology, biopsy method, preoperative and postoperative tissue grade, and histology were abstracted and stratified by patient body mass index (obese ≥30 kg/m and nonobese <30 kg/m). Patients with incomplete records or uterine sarcoma were excluded. The agreement between preoperative and postoperative tumor grade for all patients and in obese and nonobese patients was determined using weighted κ statistics.
RESULTS: Four hindered forty-five patients were included: 161 nonobese patients and 284 obese patients. The proportion of preoperative sampling via office biopsy and dilation and curettage was similar in each cohort. Overall, the agreement between preoperative and postoperative pathology was only fair (weighted κ = 0.21). Stratified by body mass index, the agreement between preoperative and postoperative grade remains fair in obese and slight in nonobese patients (weighted κ = 0.21 and 0.19, respectively). Substantial increases in tumor grade from preoperative to postoperative pathologic specimens occurred in both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Obesity does not appear to significantly alter the correlation between preoperative biopsy and final tumor grade. With only fair correlation between preoperative and postoperative pathologic evaluation, utilization of preoperative biopsy pathology results as a triage tool for surgical staging should be avoided. However, the discordance between preoperative and postoperative pathology in favor of a higher grade on final pathology in both groups may cause some surgeons to favor staging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28333843      PMCID: PMC5907792          DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  41 in total

1.  Predictors of final histology in patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Michael Frumovitz; Diljeet K Singh; Larissa Meyer; Daniel H Smith; Iris Wertheim; Ephraim Resnik; Diane C Bodurka
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Frozen section pathology at time of hysterectomy accurately predicts endometrial cancer in patients with preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Matteo Morotti; Mario Valenzano Menada; Melita Moioli; Paolo Sala; Ilaria Maffeo; Luca Abete; Ezio Fulcheri; Stefania Menoni; Pierluigi Venturini; Andrea Papadia
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  A prospective assessment of the reliability of frozen section to direct intraoperative decision making in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kumar; Fabiola Medeiros; Sean C Dowdy; Gary L Keeney; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Karl C Podratz; William A Cliby; Andrea Mariani
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  The accuracy of endometrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  F P Dijkhuizen; B W Mol; H A Brölmann; A P Heintz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C).

Authors:  Fuat Demirkiran; Evrim Yavuz; Hakan Erenel; Tugan Bese; Macit Arvas; Cevdet Sanioglu
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults.

Authors:  Eugenia E Calle; Carmen Rodriguez; Kimberly Walker-Thurmond; Michael J Thun
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Tumor size, depth of invasion, and histologic grade as prognostic factors of lymph node involvement in endometrial cancer: a SEER analysis.

Authors:  Roberto Vargas; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Joel Clemmer; Rachel M Clark; Annekathryn Goodman; Whitfield B Growdon; John O Schorge; Marcela G Del Carmen; Neil S Horowitz; David M Boruta
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-02-16       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 8.  Endometrial cancer and obesity: epidemiology, biomarkers, prevention and survivorship.

Authors:  Amanda Nickles Fader; Lucybeth Nieves Arriba; Heidi E Frasure; Vivian E von Gruenigen
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Pierluigi Benedetti Panici; Stefano Basile; Francesco Maneschi; Andrea Alberto Lissoni; Mauro Signorelli; Giovanni Scambia; Roberto Angioli; Saverio Tateo; Giorgia Mangili; Dionyssios Katsaros; Gaetano Garozzo; Elio Campagnutta; Nicoletta Donadello; Stefano Greggi; Mauro Melpignano; Francesco Raspagliesi; Nicola Ragni; Gennaro Cormio; Roberto Grassi; Massimo Franchi; Diana Giannarelli; Roldano Fossati; Valter Torri; Mariangela Amoroso; Clara Crocè; Costantino Mangioni
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study.

Authors:  H Kitchener; A M C Swart; Q Qian; C Amos; M K B Parmar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.