Comparative analysis of European guideline-based clinicopathological risk groups and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for endometrial cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Loukovaara, Mikko J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Pasanen, Annukka M. [4 ,5 ]
Lassus, Heini J. [1 ,2 ]
Luomaranta, Anna L. [1 ,2 ]
Hellberg, Piret [1 ,2 ]
Vartiainen, Johanna [1 ,2 ]
Tapper, Johanna E. [1 ,2 ]
Butzow, Ralf C. [1 ,2 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Helsinki Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, POB 180 HUS, Helsinki 00029, Finland
[2] Univ Helsinki, POB 180 HUS, Helsinki 00029, Finland
[3] Helsinki Univ Hosp, Comprehens Canc Ctr, Helsinki, Finland
[4] Helsinki Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, Helsinki, Finland
[5] Univ Helsinki, Fac Med, Res Program Appl Tumor Genom, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
Endometrial cancer; Mismatch repair; Polymerase-is an element of; p53; Stage; Survival; CELL-ADHESION MOLECULE; CLASSIFICATION; CARCINOMA;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.02.049
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate the correlation between endometrial cancer risk groups, as defined by the 2021 European guidelines, and the 2023 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system. Further, we aimed to evaluate the additional prognostic capability of the staging system within individual risk groups. Study design: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent primary treatment for endometrial cancer at a single tertiary center. Each case was classified into a molecular-integrated risk group according to the 2021 joint guidelines from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP). Staging was performed using the FIGO 2023 criteria with molecular classification. Results: Data from 1044 patients were analyzed. Median follow-up was 70 months. Stage IA2, stage IB, and stage IVB were the most prevalent stages among the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP low-risk, intermediate risk, and advanced- metastatic groups, accounting for 80 %, 75 %, and 54 % of the cases, respectively. The stage distribution was more heterogeneous in the high-intermediate risk and high-risk groups, with stage IIA comprising 36 % and stage IICmp53abn comprising 35 % of cases in these groups. The FIGO staging system further stratified survival outcomes especially in the high-intermediate and high-risk groups. Stage IIC included a substantial number of cases from the intermediate risk (n = 23), high-intermediate risk (n = 48), and high-risk (n = 27) groups. Risk groups were associated with survival within this stage. Conclusions: ESGO-ESTRO-ESP high-intermediate risk and high-risk endometrial cancers exhibited the greatest variability in terms of stage distribution and survival outcomes. Stage IIC, the most heterogeneous stage concerning risk groups, showed an association between risk groups and survival.
引用
收藏
页码:85 / 89
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] INTERNATIONAL-FEDERATION-OF-GYNECOLOGY-AND-OBSTETRICS STAGING OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER 1988
    MIKUTA, JJ
    CANCER, 1993, 71 (04) : 1460 - 1463
  • [2] Endometrial Cancer, the Current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System, and the Role of Imaging
    Saleh, Mohammed
    Virarkar, Mayur
    Bhosale, Priya
    El Sherif, Sherif
    Javadi, Sanaz
    Faria, Silvana C.
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2020, 44 (05) : 714 - 729
  • [3] Pocket reference based on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging of endometrial cancer 2023
    Bonaldo, Giulio
    De Vitis, Luigi Antonio
    Perez-Benavente, Asuncion
    Gil-Moreno, Antonio
    Multinu, Francesco
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2024,
  • [4] Comparative Performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' Staging System for Uterine Corpus Cancer
    Koskas, Martin
    Rouzier, Roman
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 117 (05): : 1225 - 1226
  • [5] Comparative Performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' Staging System for Uterine Corpus Cancer
    Lewin, Sharyn N.
    Herzog, Thomas J.
    Medel, Nicanor I. Barrena
    Deutsch, Israel
    Burke, William M.
    Sun, Xuming
    Wright, Jason D.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (05): : 1141 - 1149
  • [6] Comparative Performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' Staging System for Uterine Corpus Cancer Reply
    Lewin, Sharyn N.
    Wright, Jason D.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 117 (05): : 1226 - 1226
  • [7] Does the Revised International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging System for Endometrial Cancer Lead to Increased Discrimination in Patient Outcomes?
    Cooke, Ellen W.
    Pappas, Lisa
    Gaffney, David K.
    CANCER, 2011, 117 (18) : 4231 - 4237
  • [8] REVISED 1988 INTERNATIONAL-FEDERATION-OF-GYNECOLOGY-AND-OBSTETRICS STAGING SYSTEMS FOR ENDOMETRIAL AND VULVAR CANCER - AN ASSESSMENT
    HOMESLEY, HD
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1992, 35 (01): : 89 - 94
  • [9] Interobserver Variability of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Staging in Cervical Cancer
    Tummers, Philippe
    Gerestein, Kees
    Mens, Jan Willem
    Verstraelen, Hans
    van Doorn, Helena
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2013, 23 (05) : 890 - 894
  • [10] Clinicopathological risk factors in the light of the revised 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging system for early cervical cancer with staging IB A single center retrospective study
    Zeng, Jing
    Qu, Pengpeng
    Hu, Yuanjing
    Sun, Peisong
    Qi, Ji
    Zhao, Guiling
    Gao, Yan
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (16) : E19714