Koji Matsuo1, David J Nusbaum2, Shinya Matsuzaki2, Erica J Chang2, Lynda D Roman3, Jason D Wright4, Philipp Harter5, Maximilian Klar6. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the survival of women with stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer with malignant peritoneal cytology. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to examine the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from 2010 to 2016. Women with stage I serous, clear cell, carcinosarcoma, undifferentiated, and mixed endometrial cancer with known peritoneal cytology results at hysterectomy were examined (N = 4506). Propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the measured covariates, and survival outcomes were assessed according to peritoneal cytology results. RESULTS: Malignant peritoneal cytology was reported in 401 (8.9%) women. In multivariable analysis, older age, serous histology, and large tumors were associated with an increased likelihood of malignant peritoneal cytology (all, P < 0.05). In a propensity score weighted model, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with a nearly two-fold increase in all-cause mortality risk compared to negative peritoneal cytology (5-year rates, 63.4% versus 80.2%, hazard ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.66). In sensitivity analyses, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with decreased overall survival in old and young age groups, serous, clear cell, carcinosarcoma, and mixed histology groups, stage T1a disease, and staged and unstaged cases, but not for stage T1b disease. Difference in 5-year overall survival rates between the malignant and negative peritoneal cytology groups was particularly large among those with clear cell histology (24.0%), stage T1a disease (19.4%), aged >78 years (18.2%), and serous tumors (17.6%). CONCLUSION: Malignant peritoneal cytology can be prevalent in stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Our study suggests that malignant peritoneal cytology is a prognostic factor for decreased survival in stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the survival of women with stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer with malignant peritoneal cytology. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to examine the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program from 2010 to 2016. Women with stage I serous, clear cell, carcinosarcoma, undifferentiated, and mixed endometrial cancer with known peritoneal cytology results at hysterectomy were examined (N = 4506). Propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the measured covariates, and survival outcomes were assessed according to peritoneal cytology results. RESULTS: Malignant peritoneal cytology was reported in 401 (8.9%) women. In multivariable analysis, older age, serous histology, and large tumors were associated with an increased likelihood of malignant peritoneal cytology (all, P < 0.05). In a propensity score weighted model, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with a nearly two-fold increase in all-cause mortality risk compared to negative peritoneal cytology (5-year rates, 63.4% versus 80.2%, hazard ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.66). In sensitivity analyses, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with decreased overall survival in old and young age groups, serous, clear cell, carcinosarcoma, and mixed histology groups, stage T1a disease, and staged and unstaged cases, but not for stage T1b disease. Difference in 5-year overall survival rates between the malignant and negative peritoneal cytology groups was particularly large among those with clear cell histology (24.0%), stage T1a disease (19.4%), aged >78 years (18.2%), and serous tumors (17.6%). CONCLUSION: Malignant peritoneal cytology can be prevalent in stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Our study suggests that malignant peritoneal cytology is a prognostic factor for decreased survival in stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.
Authors: K Matsuo; Y Takazawa; M S Ross; E Elishaev; I Podzielinski; M Yunokawa; T B Sheridan; S H Bush; M M Klobocista; E A Blake; T Takano; S Matsuzaki; T Baba; S Satoh; M Shida; T Nishikawa; Y Ikeda; S Adachi; T Yokoyama; M Takekuma; K Fujiwara; Y Hazama; D Kadogami; M N Moffitt; S Takeuchi; M Nishimura; K Iwasaki; N Ushioda; M S Johnson; M Yoshida; A Hakam; S W Li; A M Richmond; H Machida; P Mhawech-Fauceglia; Y Ueda; K Yoshino; K Yamaguchi; T Oishi; H Kajiwara; K Hasegawa; M Yasuda; K Kawana; K Suda; T M Miyake; T Moriya; Y Yuba; T Morgan; T Fukagawa; A Wakatsuki; T Sugiyama; T Pejovic; T Nagano; K Shimoya; M Andoh; Y Shiki; T Enomoto; T Sasaki; K Fujiwara; M Mikami; M Shimada; I Konishi; T Kimura; M D Post; M M Shahzad; D D Im; H Yoshida; K Omatsu; F R Ueland; J L Kelley; R G Karabakhtsian; L D Roman Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Nikolaos P Polyzos; Davide Mauri; Spyridon Tsioras; Christina I Messini; Antonis Valachis; Ioannis E Messinis Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Gunjal Garg; Feng Gao; Jason D Wright; Andrea R Hagemann; David G Mutch; Matthew A Powell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: D P Mysona; L K H Tran; P M H Tran; P A Gehrig; L Van Le; S Ghamande; B J Rungruang; J Java; A K Mann; J Liao; D S Kapp; Bruno Dos Santos; J X She; J K Chan Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 5.482
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; Romerai D'Amico; Anthony Fyles; Marie-Helene Baron; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; Henry C Kitchener; Hans W Nijman; Godfrey Wilson; Susan Brooks; Sergio Gribaudo; Diane Provencher; Chantal Hanzen; Roy F Kruitwagen; Vincent T H B M Smit; Naveena Singh; Viet Do; Andrea Lissoni; Remi A Nout; Amanda Feeney; Karen W Verhoeven-Adema; Hein Putter; Carien L Creutzberg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ashley S Felix; Louise A Brinton; D Scott McMeekin; William T Creasman; David Mutch; David E Cohn; Joan L Walker; Richard G Moore; Levi S Downs; Robert A Soslow; Richard Zaino; Mark E Sherman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cyriac Kandoth; Nikolaus Schultz; Andrew D Cherniack; Rehan Akbani; Yuexin Liu; Hui Shen; A Gordon Robertson; Itai Pashtan; Ronglai Shen; Christopher C Benz; Christina Yau; Peter W Laird; Li Ding; Wei Zhang; Gordon B Mills; Raju Kucherlapati; Elaine R Mardis; Douglas A Levine Journal: Nature Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 49.962