Should preoperative pathology be used to select patients for surgical staging in endometrial cancer?

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 380-384

  Francis, Julie A ^a   Weir, Michele M ^b   Ettler, Helen C ^b   Qiu, Feng ^c   Kwon, Janice S ^d  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Endometrial cancer; Preoperative pathology; Surgical staging

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER CENTER; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURETTAGE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENDOMETRIOID CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM BIOPSY; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; ENDOMETRIUM SARCOMA; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LEIOMYOSARCOMA; LYMPHADENECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIXED MULLERIAN TUMOR; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SALPINGOOOPHORECTOMY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; TEACHING HOSPITAL;

AGED; CARCINOMA, ENDOMETRIOID; COHORT STUDIES; ENDOMETRIAL HYPERPLASIA; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 68149161200     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a1a657     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. NCI. Endometrial Cancer (PDQ): Epidemiology of endometrial cancer, incidence and mortality. cancer stat fact sheets [Web site]. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/endometrial/HealthProfessional/ page2/print#Section-13, 2007. Acessed August 26, 2008.
2. NCIC. Canadian Cancer Statistics: geographic patterns of cancer occurrence. 22. Available at: http://cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182, 3172-14279-langId-en.00.html. Acessed August 26, 2008.
3. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, et al. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer. 1987;60 (Suppl 8): 2035-2041.
4. Franchi M., Ghezzi F., Riva C., et al. Postoperative complications after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the surgical staging of endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2001;78:232-237; discussion 237-240.
5. Mohan DS, Samuels MA, Selim MA, et al. Long-term outcomes of therapeutic pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1998;70:165-171.
6. Kwon JS, Carey MS, Cook EF, et al. Patterns of practice and outcomes in intermediate-and high-risk stage I and II endometrial cancer: a population-based study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:433-440.
7. Kwon JS, Carey MS, Cook EF, et al. Addressing wait times for endometrial cancer surgery in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29:982-987.
8. Kwon JS, Bryson P., Liu G., et al. A comparison of endometrial cancer outcomes in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26:793-798.
9. Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki J., Mount SL. Surgical stage, final grade, and survival of women with endometrial carcinoma whose preoperative endometrial biopsy shows well-differentiated tumors. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:309-312.
10. Mitchard J., Hirschowitz L. Concordance of FIGO grade of endometrial adenocarcinomas in biopsy and hysterectomy specimens. Histopathology. 2003;42:372-378.
11. Obermair A., Geramou M., Gucer F., et al. Endometrial cancer: accuracy of the finding of a well differentiated tumor at dilatation and curettage compared to the findings at subsequent hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1999;9:383-386.
12. Wang X., Huang Z., Di W., et al. Comparison of D&C and hysterectomy pathologic findings in endometrial cancer patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;272:136-141.
13. Hernandez E. ACOG practice bulletin number 65: management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:952; author reply 952-953.
14. Ben-Shachar I., Pavelka J., Cohn DE, et al. Surgical staging for patients presenting with grade 1 endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:487-493.
15. Cohn DE, Huh WK, Fowler JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for the surgical management of grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1388-1395.
16. Aalders JG, Thomas G. Endometrial cancer-revisiting the importance of pelvic and para aortic lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 104:222-231.
17. ASTEC-EN. 5 Study Group, Blake P., Swart AM, Orton J., et al. Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTGEN. 5 randomized trials): Pooled trial results, systemic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 373:137-146.
18. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Broste SK, et al. Comparison of D&C and office endometrial biopsy in predicting final histopathologic grade in endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:38-42.
19. Alkushi A., Abdul-Rahman ZH, Lim P., et al. Description of a novel system for grading of endometrial carcinoma and comparison with existing grading systems. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:295-304.
20. Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, et al. A binary architectural grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma has superior reproducibility compared with FIGO grading and identifies subsets of advance-stage tumors with favorable and unfavorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:1201-1208.
21. Sagae S., Saito T., Satoh M., et al. The reproducibility of a binary tumor grading system for uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, compared with FIGO system and nuclear grading. Oncology. 2004;67:344-350.
22. Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H., et al. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:764-772.
23. Taylor RR, Zeller J., Lieberman RW, et al. An analysis of two versus three grades for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;74:3-6.
24. Chung HH, Kang SB, Cho JY, et al. Accuracy of MR imaging for the prediction of myometrial invasion of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:654-659.
25. Manfredi R., Mirk P., Maresca G., et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology. 2004;231:372-378.
26. w and coronal-FMPSPGR gadolinium-DOTA-enhanced sequences. Radiol Med (Torino). 2005;110:199-210.
27. Rockall AG, Meroni R., Sohaib SA, et al. Evaluation of endometrial carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:188-196.
28. Vasconcelos C., Felix A., Cunha TM. Preoperative assessment of deep myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and histopathologic evaluation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;27:65-70.
29. Yahata T., Aoki Y., Tanaka K. Prediction of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial carcinoma: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal ultrasonography, and gross visual inspection. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28:193-195.
30. Chao A., Chang TC, Ng KK, et al. 18F-FDG PET in the management of endometrial cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:36-44.
31. Horowitz NS, Dehdashti F., Herzog TJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of FDG-PET for detecting pelvic and para-aortic lymph node metastasis in uterine corpus cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:546-551.
32. Suzuki R., Miyagi E., Takahashi N., et al. Validity of positron emission tomography using fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the preoperative evaluation of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:890-896.
33. Chung HH, Kim JW, Park NH, et al. Use of preoperative serum CA-125 levels for prediction of lymph node metastasis and prognosis in endometrial cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:1501-1505.
34. Dotters DJ. Preoperative CA 125 in endometrial cancer: is it useful? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1328-1334.
35. Duk JM, Aalders JG, Fleuren GJ, et al. CA 125: a useful marker in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;155: 1097-1102.
36. Powell JL, Hill KA, Shiro BC, et al. Preoperative serum CA-125 levels in treating endometrial cancer. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:585-590.
37. Sood AK, Buller RE, Burger RA, et al. Value of preoperative CA 125 level in the management of uterine cancer and prediction of clinical outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:441-447.
38. Schneider J., Centeno M., Saez F., et al. Preoperative CA-125, CA 19-9 and nuclear magnetic resonance in endometrial carcinoma: correlation with surgical stage. Tumour Biol. 1999;20:25-29.
39. Takeshima N., Shimizu Y., Umezawa S., et al. Combined assay of serum levels of CA125 and CA19-9 in endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54:321-326.
40. Athanassiadou P., Athanassiades P., Grapsa D., et al. The prognostic value of PTEN, p53, and beta-catenin in endometrial carcinoma: a prospective immunocytochemical study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:697-704.
41. Mori N., Kyo S., Sakaguchi J., et al. Concomitant activation of AKT with extracellular-regulated kinase 1/2 occurs independently of PTEN or PIK3CA mutations in endometrial cancer and may be associated with favorable prognosis. Cancer Sci. 2007;98:1881-1888.
42. Uegaki K., Kanamori Y., Kigawa J., et al. PTEN-positive and phosphorylated-Akt-negative expression is a predictor of survival for patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2005;14:389-392.
43. Holcomb K., Delatorre R., Pedemonte B., et al. E-cadherin expression in endometrioid, papillary serous, and clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:1290-1295.
44. Mell LK, Meyer JJ, Tretiakova M., et al. Prognostic significance of E-cadherin protein expression in pathological stage I-III endometrial cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:5546-5553.
45. Scholten AN, Aliredjo R., Creutzberg CL, et al. Combined E-cadherin, alpha-catenin, and beta-catenin expression is a favorable prognostic factor in endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1379-1385.
46. Case AS, Rocconi RP, Straughn JM, Jr., et al. A prospective blinded evaluation of the accuracy of frozen section for the surgical management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1375-1379.
47. Frumovitz M., Slomovitz BM, Singh DK, et al. Frozen section analyses as predictors of lymphatic spread in patients with early-stage uterine cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:388-393.
48. Kir G., Kir M., Cetiner H., et al. Diagnostic problems on frozen section examination of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial carcinoma with special emphasis on the pitfalls of deep adenomyosis with carcinomatous involvement. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25:211-214.
49. Sanjuan A., Cobo T., Pahisa J., et al. Preoperative and intraoperative assessment of myometrial invasion and histologic grade in endometrial cancer: role of magnetic resonance imaging and frozen section. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:385-390.
50. Kayikcioglu F., Boran N., Meydanli MM, et al. Is frozen-section diagnosis a reliable guide in surgical treatment of stage I endometrial carcinoma? Acta Oncol. 2002;41:444-446.
51. Shim JU, Rose PG, Reale FR, et al. Accuracy of frozen-section diagnosis at surgery in clinical stage I and II endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 1992;166:1335-1338.
52. Altintas A., Cosar E., Vardar MA, et al. Intraoperative assessment of depth of myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1999;20:329-331.
53. Kwon JS, Francis JA, Qiu F., et al. When is a pathology review indicated in endometrial cancer? Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1224-1230.