Casey M Cosgrove1, David E Cohn2, Jennifer Rhoades3, Ashley S Felix3. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States of America. Electronic address: Casey.Cosgrove@osumc.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States of America. 3. Division of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, OH, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of aortic vs. pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis among women with endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using data from the SEER 18 Registries we identified 3650 women with LN positive (stage IIIC) EC. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare mortality between women with stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 disease. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between stage III sub-stage (IIIC1 vs. IIIC2) and survival. RESULTS: Endometrioid tumors were more common among women with stage IIIC1 than IIIC2 tumors (62.5% vs. 54.3%) while, non-endometrioid histologies were more common among stage IIIC2. In the multivariable model, stage IIIC2 was associated with higher all-cause (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.69) and EC-specific mortality (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.77) compared with IIIC1. Women with non-endometrioid EC had poor survival, in particular, women with carcinosarcomas had higher EC-specific mortality compared to women with endometrioid EC (HR = 3.32, 95% CI = 2.71-4.07). When stratifying women according to substage, older age and non-endometrioid histology were associated with higher EC-specific mortality. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower all-cause (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.88) and EC-specific (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.95) mortality. CONCLUSION: Women with aortic LN positive EC are more likely to die from their disease. Older women and non-endometrioid histologies are more likely to have aortic LN involvement. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower EC mortality.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic impact of aortic vs. pelvic lymph node (LN) metastasis among women with endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Using data from the SEER 18 Registries we identified 3650 women with LN positive (stage IIIC) EC. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare mortality between women with stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 disease. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between stage III sub-stage (IIIC1 vs. IIIC2) and survival. RESULTS:Endometrioid tumors were more common among women with stage IIIC1 than IIIC2 tumors (62.5% vs. 54.3%) while, non-endometrioid histologies were more common among stage IIIC2. In the multivariable model, stage IIIC2 was associated with higher all-cause (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.69) and EC-specific mortality (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.77) compared with IIIC1. Women with non-endometrioid EC had poor survival, in particular, women with carcinosarcomas had higher EC-specific mortality compared to women with endometrioid EC (HR = 3.32, 95% CI = 2.71-4.07). When stratifying women according to substage, older age and non-endometrioid histology were associated with higher EC-specific mortality. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower all-cause (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.88) and EC-specific (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.95) mortality. CONCLUSION:Women with aortic LN positive EC are more likely to die from their disease. Older women and non-endometrioid histologies are more likely to have aortic LN involvement. Compared to women with a pelvic-only LN dissection, women with pelvic and aortic dissections had lower EC mortality.
Authors: Alessandro Buda; Maria Luisa Gasparri; Andrea Puppo; Liliana Mereu; Elena De Ponti; Giampaolo Di Martino; Antonia Novelli; Saverio Tateo; Michael Muller; Fabio Landoni; Andrea Papadia Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emma C Rossi; Lynn D Kowalski; Jennifer Scalici; Leigh Cantrell; Kevin Schuler; Rabbie K Hanna; Michael Method; Melissa Ade; Anastasia Ivanova; John F Boggess Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Amanika Kumar; Sumer A Wallace; William A Cliby; Gretchen E Glaser; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao; Michael Frumovitz; Carrie L Langstraat Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Sarika Gupta; Nicole M Stavitzski; Xiang Zhu; Erica L Takimoto; Ajit Gubbi; Glenn E Bigsby; Lorna A Brudie; James E Kendrick; Sarfraz Ahmad Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Joseph P Costantino; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh Mc Scarth; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jeffrey A James; Joseph A Rakowski; Corinne N Jeppson; Nicole M Stavitzski; Sarfraz Ahmad; Robert W Holloway Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-12-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Charles F Levenback; Shamshad Ali; Robert L Coleman; Michael A Gold; Jeffrey M Fowler; Patricia L Judson; Maria C Bell; Koen De Geest; Nick M Spirtos; Ronald K Potkul; Mario M Leitao; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Emma C Rossi; Samuel S Lentz; James J Burke; Linda Van Le; Cornelia L Trimble Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 44.544