McKayla J Riggs1, Callie M Cox Bauer1,2, Caela R Miller1, James K Aden3, Scott A Kamelle4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX. 2. Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aurora Sinai Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI. 3. Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX. 4. Gynecologic Oncology, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the optimal tumor diameter for predicting lymphatic metastasis and to determine intraoperatively the need for lymph node dissection in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: Military beneficiaries diagnosed with stage I-III endometrioid endometrial cancer during 2003-2016 who had at least 7 pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph nodes removed during the time of hysterectomy were studied. Tumor diameter was compared against the presence of positive nodes, using the prior models of 20 mm (ie, Mayo model) and 50 mm (ie, Milwaukee model), to determine the false-negative rate of each threshold. A separate analysis was completed to determine the optimal diameter for our population. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis models of tumor diameter were evaluated for model fit and predictive power of lymph node involvement. RESULTS: Of the 1224 patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer included, 13% (n=160) had positive lymph node involvement. Tumor sizes ranged from 1 mm to 100 mm. In contrast to Mayo and Milwaukee models (ie, Mayo, Milwaukee), the optimal tumor diameter independent of myometrial invasion and grade of tumor to predict lymph node metastasis was found to be 35 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Endometrioid endometrial cancer tumor diameter of 35 mm was found to be the optimal threshold for lymphadenectomy when the operating surgeon has no knowledge of tumor invasion.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the optimal tumor diameter for predicting lymphatic metastasis and to determine intraoperatively the need for lymph node dissection in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. METHODS: Military beneficiaries diagnosed with stage I-III endometrioid endometrial cancer during 2003-2016 who had at least 7 pelvic and/or paraaortic lymph nodes removed during the time of hysterectomy were studied. Tumor diameter was compared against the presence of positive nodes, using the prior models of 20 mm (ie, Mayo model) and 50 mm (ie, Milwaukee model), to determine the false-negative rate of each threshold. A separate analysis was completed to determine the optimal diameter for our population. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis models of tumor diameter were evaluated for model fit and predictive power of lymph node involvement. RESULTS: Of the 1224 patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer included, 13% (n=160) had positive lymph node involvement. Tumor sizes ranged from 1 mm to 100 mm. In contrast to Mayo and Milwaukee models (ie, Mayo, Milwaukee), the optimal tumor diameter independent of myometrial invasion and grade of tumor to predict lymph node metastasis was found to be 35 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Endometrioid endometrial cancer tumor diameter of 35 mm was found to be the optimal threshold for lymphadenectomy when the operating surgeon has no knowledge of tumor invasion.
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: Cornelia L Trimble; James Kauderer; Richard Zaino; Steven Silverberg; Peter C Lim; James J Burke; David Alberts; John Curtin Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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
Authors: Defeng Liu; Linsha Yang; Dan Du; Tao Zheng; Lanxiang Liu; Zhanqiu Wang; Juan Du; Yanchao Dong; Huiling Yi; Yujie Cui Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 6.244