S Marnitz1, C Köhler2, N Gharbi3, S Kunze3, K Jablonska3, J Herter3. 1. Medical Faculty, Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife- and Radiation Therapy, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. simone.marnitz-schulze@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Special Operative and Oncologic Gynaecology, Asklepios-Clinic Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty, Department of Radiation Oncology, CyberKnife- and Radiation Therapy, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For endometrial cancer (EC), clinical and pathological risk factors are taken to triage patients and estimate their prognosis. Lymph node involvement (pN+), lymphovascular space involvement (LSVI), grading, age of the patients, and T classification are internationally accepted parameters for treatment decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies on adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and chemoradiation are discussed against the background of risk stratification and clinical decision-making in early-to-advanced stage endometrial cancer. Recent publications on adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease and its implications for the patients with regard to expected oncologic benefit and treatment-related toxicity are discussed. RESULTS: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment of EC patients. Well-differentiated tumors and early disease (FIGO IA) should be followed up without further treatment. In FIGO I stage without risk factors, VBT remains the standard treatment after surgery. FIGO I, II patients with one or more risk factors (MI ≥ 50%, Grading[G]3, age >60 years, LVSI) benefit from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of survival. There are no data of acceptable quality demonstrating that chemotherapy is superior to radiation in locally advanced carcinomas. Therefore, even in locally advanced disease (FIGO III, IV), EBRT remains the standard of care after surgery. EBRT contributes to the very low rate of local relapses and better DFS in these patients and should not be replaced by chemotherapy only. Whether and which subgroups of patients benefit from an additional (concomitant and/or adjuvant) chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival remains a controversial issue. The recently published PORTEC-3 trial could not create clear evidence. With a high rate of isolated tumors cells and micrometastases in the specimens, the increasing use of unvalidated sentinel concepts in endometrial cancer raises more questions with regard to indications for adjuvant treatment. In the future, integrated genomic characterization of tumors might be helpful for treatment individualization in the adjuvant setting.
PURPOSE: For endometrial cancer (EC), clinical and pathological risk factors are taken to triage patients and estimate their prognosis. Lymph node involvement (pN+), lymphovascular space involvement (LSVI), grading, age of the patients, and T classification are internationally accepted parameters for treatment decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies on adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and chemoradiation are discussed against the background of risk stratification and clinical decision-making in early-to-advanced stage endometrial cancer. Recent publications on adjuvant treatment in high-risk disease and its implications for the patients with regard to expected oncologic benefit and treatment-related toxicity are discussed. RESULTS: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment of EC patients. Well-differentiated tumors and early disease (FIGO IA) should be followed up without further treatment. In FIGO I stage without risk factors, VBT remains the standard treatment after surgery. FIGO I, II patients with one or more risk factors (MI ≥ 50%, Grading[G]3, age >60 years, LVSI) benefit from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in terms of survival. There are no data of acceptable quality demonstrating that chemotherapy is superior to radiation in locally advanced carcinomas. Therefore, even in locally advanced disease (FIGO III, IV), EBRT remains the standard of care after surgery. EBRT contributes to the very low rate of local relapses and better DFS in these patients and should not be replaced by chemotherapy only. Whether and which subgroups of patients benefit from an additional (concomitant and/or adjuvant) chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival remains a controversial issue. The recently published PORTEC-3 trial could not create clear evidence. With a high rate of isolated tumors cells and micrometastases in the specimens, the increasing use of unvalidated sentinel concepts in endometrial cancer raises more questions with regard to indications for adjuvant treatment. In the future, integrated genomic characterization of tumors might be helpful for treatment individualization in the adjuvant setting.
Authors: Stephanie M de Boer; Melanie E Powell; Linda Mileshkin; Dionyssios Katsaros; Paul Bessette; Christine Haie-Meder; Petronella B Ottevanger; Jonathan A Ledermann; Pearly Khaw; Alessandro Colombo; Anthony Fyles; Marie-Helene Baron; Henry C Kitchener; Hans W Nijman; Roy F Kruitwagen; Remi A Nout; Karen W Verhoeven-Adema; Vincent T Smit; Hein Putter; Carien L Creutzberg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Carien L Creutzberg; Remi A Nout; Marnix L M Lybeert; Carla C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; Jan J Jobsen; Jan-Willem M Mens; Ludy C H W Lutgens; Elisabeth Pras; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Wim L J van Putten Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Floor J Backes; John F Boggess; Walter H Gotlieb; W Jeffrey Lowery; Emma C Rossi; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca J Wolsky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396