OBJECTIVE: We tested the null hypothesis that morbid obesity as measured by the Quetelet index has no influence on survival in endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of 492 women with endometrial carcinoma was performed. Age, height, weight, Quetelet index, stage, cell type, grade, node status, peritoneal cytologic findings, and depth of myometrial invasion were analyzed for influence on survival. RESULTS: Mean Quetelet index was 34 (range 16 to 89). Quetelet index was < 30 in 45% of patients, 30 to 40 in 33%, and > 40 in 22%. Five percent of those with a Quetelet index > 40 had positive nodes, but 64% of patients with a Quetelet index > 40 did not have lymph node sampling done. Lack of sampling of lymph nodes in the entire group had no adverse effect on survival. In a proportional hazards regression model for time from diagnosis to death from disease, grade, node status, myometrial invasion, and stage had highly significant effects. When Quetelet index was analyzed as a continuous variable, as Quetelet index increased, time to recurrence was significantly increased (p = 0.0136), and significance was approached for survival (p = 0.0645). Quetelet index was strongly related to grade (p = 0.013), depth of myometrial invasion (p = 0.031), negative cytologic findings (p = 0.004), and stage (p = 0.011) with obese patients having better differentiated, less invasive tumors of lower stage with negative washings. CONCLUSIONS: Morbid obesity positively affects survival in endometrial carcinoma. This effect is accounted for by the association of obesity with less aggressive disease. Morbid obesity is not associated with increased death from other causes. Lack of sampling of negative lymph nodes does not adversely affect survival.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the null hypothesis that morbid obesity as measured by the Quetelet index has no influence on survival in endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of 492 women with endometrial carcinoma was performed. Age, height, weight, Quetelet index, stage, cell type, grade, node status, peritoneal cytologic findings, and depth of myometrial invasion were analyzed for influence on survival. RESULTS: Mean Quetelet index was 34 (range 16 to 89). Quetelet index was < 30 in 45% of patients, 30 to 40 in 33%, and > 40 in 22%. Five percent of those with a Quetelet index > 40 had positive nodes, but 64% of patients with a Quetelet index > 40 did not have lymph node sampling done. Lack of sampling of lymph nodes in the entire group had no adverse effect on survival. In a proportional hazards regression model for time from diagnosis to death from disease, grade, node status, myometrial invasion, and stage had highly significant effects. When Quetelet index was analyzed as a continuous variable, as Quetelet index increased, time to recurrence was significantly increased (p = 0.0136), and significance was approached for survival (p = 0.0645). Quetelet index was strongly related to grade (p = 0.013), depth of myometrial invasion (p = 0.031), negative cytologic findings (p = 0.004), and stage (p = 0.011) with obesepatients having better differentiated, less invasive tumors of lower stage with negative washings. CONCLUSIONS: Morbid obesity positively affects survival in endometrial carcinoma. This effect is accounted for by the association of obesity with less aggressive disease. Morbid obesity is not associated with increased death from other causes. Lack of sampling of negative lymph nodes does not adversely affect survival.
Authors: Amy S Joehlin-Price; Julie A Stephens; Jianying Zhang; Floor J Backes; David E Cohn; Adrian A Suarez Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Shannon N Westin; Zhenlin Ju; Russell R Broaddus; Camilla Krakstad; Jane Li; Navdeep Pal; Karen H Lu; Robert L Coleman; Bryan T Hennessy; Samuel J Klempner; Henrica M J Werner; Helga B Salvesen; Lewis C Cantley; Gordon B Mills; Andrea P Myers Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: David A Iglesias; Shannon N Westin; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Marilyn Huang; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Amy S Joehlin-Price; Carmen M Perrino; Julie Stephens; Floor J Backes; Paul J Goodfellow; David E Cohn; Adrian A Suarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hannah Arem; Yikyung Park; Colleen Pelser; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Melinda L Irwin; Albert Hollenbeck; Gretchen L Gierach; Louise A Brinton; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Charles E Matthews Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ashley S Felix; Cindy K Blair; Amy Lehman; Julie K Bower; Subha V Raman; DeAnn Lazovich; David E Cohn; Anna E Prizment Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: L M Berstein; J O Kvatchevskaya; T E Poroshina; I G Kovalenko; E V Tsyrlina; T S Zimarina; A F Ourmantcheeva; L Ashrafian; J H H Thijssen Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.553