| Literature DB >> 29796179 |
Kohei Nakamura1, Kentaro Nakayama1, Noriyoshi Ishikawa2, Toshiko Minamoto1, Tomoka Ishibashi1, Kaori Ohnishi1, Hitomi Yamashita1, Ruriko Ono1, Hiroki Sasamori1, Sultana Razia1, Mohammad Mahmud Hossain1, Shanta Kamrunnahar1, Masako Ishikawa1, Satoru Kyo1.
Abstract
We examined the usefulness of evaluating tumor size determined using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prognosis in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC). Patients (N = 184) with EC who underwent surgery at Shimane University Hospital between 1997 and 2013 were enrolled. We investigated the association between the tumor size of EC assessed prior to surgery by MRI (anteroposterior [AP], transverse [TV], and craniocaudal [CC] diameters) and various clinical parameters including deep myometrial invasion and lymph node metastases. We subsequently examined the prognostic significance of tumor size in patients with EC. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and prognostic factors were evaluated using the Cox's proportional hazards regression model. Multivariate analysis identified increased AP diameter as an independent negative prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) (P = 0.037). A long AP diameter has prognostic value and the potential to be a predictive marker for surgical outcomes in patients with EC. Furthermore, AP diameter exhibited the greatest area under the curve (AUC) (0.727) for deep myometrial invasion, and CC diameter had the greatest AUC for lymph node metastases (0.854). Evaluation of tumor size parameters may aid in the identification of high-risk populations, which could improve treatment selection and patient outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: endometrial carcinoma; myometrial invasion; overall survival; progression-free survival; tumor size
Year: 2018 PMID: 29796179 PMCID: PMC5955431 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25248
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinical characteristics of the patient population (n = 184)
| Characteristic | No. of patients | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis, y | ||
| < 60 | 93 | 51 |
| ≥ 60 | 91 | 49 |
| FIGO stage | ||
| I, II | 143 | 78 |
| III, IV | 41 | 22 |
| Histology | ||
| Endometrioid | 161 | 88 |
| Other | 23 | 12 |
| Grade | ||
| G1 | 85 | 46 |
| G2, G3 | 99 | 54 |
| Myometrial invasion | ||
| < 1/2 | 119 | 65 |
| ≥ 59/ | 65 | 35 |
| Lymph metastasis | ||
| No | 136 | 74 |
| Yes | 19 | 10 |
| Not assessed | 29 | 16 |
| Venous invasion | ||
| No | 125 | 68 |
| Yes | 59 | 32 |
| Lymphatic invasion | ||
| No | 104 | |
| Yes | 80 | |
| AP diameter, mm | ||
| < 52 | 146 | |
| ≥ 46 | 38 | |
| TV diameter, mm | ||
| < 37 | 119 | |
| ≥ 19 | 65 | |
| CC diameter, mm | ||
| < 28 | 111 | |
| ≥ 11 | 73 |
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; AP, anteroposterior; TV, transverse; CC, craniocaudal.
Figure 1Association of the three tumor size measurements and prognosis
Kaplan-Meier estimates of the usefulness of the AP diameter in the prognosis of PFS (A) and OS (B), the CC diameter in the prognosis of PFS (C) and OS (D), and the TV diameter in the prognosis of PFS (E) and OS (F) in patients with endometrial carcinoma.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for progression-free survival
| Factor | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Age at diagnosis, y | 2.379 | 0.978–5.784 | 0.056 | - | - | - |
| FIGO stage | 9.705 | 3.795–24.816 | < 0.001 | 4.441 | 1.463–13.476 | 0.008 |
| Histology | 3.203 | 1.256–8.171 | 0.015 | - | - | - |
| Grade | 8.951 | 2.098–38.177 | 0.003 | 3.193 | 0.680–14.980 | 0.141 |
| Myometrial invasion | 2.957 | 1.264–6.921 | 0.012 | - | - | - |
| Lymph metastasis | 10.197 | 3.921–26.518 | < 0.001 | - | - | - |
| Venous invasion | 3.726 | 1.589–8.734 | 0.002 | - | - | - |
| Lymphatic invasion | 7.124 | 2.405–21.106 | < 0.001 | 2.770 | 0.795–9.649 | 0.110 |
| AP diameter | 4.737 | 1.867–12.020 | 0.001 | - | - | - |
| CC diameter | 3.702 | 1.633–8.392 | 0.002 | - | - | - |
| TV diameter | 2.729 | 1.195–6.230 | 0.017 | - | - | - |
AP, anteroposterior; TV, transverse; CC, craniocaudal; CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; N/A, not available.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall prognostic factors
| Factor | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Age at diagnosis, y | 1.548 | 0.551–4.352 | 0.407 | - | - | - |
| FIGO stage | 9.642 | 3.067–30.311 | < 0.001 | 5.756 | 1.708–19.397 | 0.005 |
| Histology | 3.699 | 1.164–11.755 | 0.027 | - | - | - |
| Grade | 5.049 | 1.138–22.407 | 0.033 | - | - | - |
| Myometrial invasion | 2.650 | 0.918–7.644 | 0.071 | - | - | - |
| Lymph metastasis | 2.529 | 1.474–4.339 | 0.001 | - | - | - |
| Venous invasion | 3.658 | 1.264–10.589 | 0.017 | - | - | - |
| Lymphatic invasion | 6.405 | 1.774–23.120 | 0.005 | - | - | - |
| AP diameter | 6.489 | 1.830–23.013 | < 0.001 | 5.285 | 1.110–25.170 | 0.037 |
| CC diameter | 3.388 | 1.228–9.347 | 0.012 | - | - | - |
| TV diameter | 3.256 | 1.157–9.165 | 0.018 | - | - | - |
AP, anteroposterior; TV, transverse; CC, craniocaudal; CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; N/A, not available.
Figure 2Characteristics for identifying deep endometrial invasion and lymph node metastases
Receiver operating characteristic curves for the three tumor size measurements for identifying deep myometrial invasion (A) and lymph nodemetastases (B) in patients with endometrial carcinoma.
Figure 3Images used to determine tumor diameter
The maximum tumor diameters were determined along three orthogonal planes. AP and maximum CC diameter were determined using the sagittal oblique T2-weighted image (A), and the TV diameter was determined using the coronal image (B).