The Results of Surgico-Pathologic Factors in Patients with Non-Endometrioid Type Endometrial Cancer: Is Tumor Type Important for Lymph Node Metastasis?
Abstract
Aim: To determine the factors identifying lymph node metastasis and the association between tumor types and surgico-pathologic factors in patients with non-endometrioid type endometrial cancer. Materials and Methods: This study included 150 patients with non-endometrioid type endometrial cancer whose staging surgeries had already been performed in our clinic. Results: Tumor types were serous in 65 patients, clear cell in 55, undifferentiated in 23 and mucinous in 8. Sixty-one patients had stage I, 6 patients had stage II, 47 patients had stage III and 36 of them had stage IV disease. Median removed lymph node number was 52 (range; 2-118). Number of the removed lymph node did not change according to tumor type. Lymph node metastasis and non-nodal extra-uterine disease were detected in 47% and 36% of patients, respectively. The type of tumor predicted the lymphatic spread, deep myometrial invasion, serosal involvement, adnexal spread, cervical invasion and omental metastasis (p<0.05). The lymphatic spread rate was 65% for undifferentiated tumor type and 12.5% for mucinous tumor type. The rate of non-nodal extra-uterine disease was 60.9%, 43.8%, 21.8% and none in patients with undifferentiated, serous, clear cell tumor and mucinous type tumor, respectively (p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, it was determined that tumor type (undifferentiated vs. others), cervical invasion and omental metastasis were independent prognostic factors for lymph node metastasis. Conclusion: Whereas the surgical-pathologic factors were significantly worse in the undifferentiated type than other tumor types, the opposite was true in the mucinous type. Mucinous type tumor is different from other non-endometrioid types in terms of nodal/non-nodal spread. Lymphatic spread was observed in slightly more than 10% of patients with mucinous tumor and non-nodal extra-uterine disease did not exist in those.References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61:69-90.
Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 1987; 60(8 Suppl):2035-41
Lewin SN, Herzog TJ, Barrena Medel NI, et al. Comparative performance of the 2009 international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics' staging system for uterine corpus cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116:1141-9
Announcements: FIGO (the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) stages: 1988 revision. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 35:125-6
Meeting Report. The new FIGO staging system for cancers of the vulva, cervix, endometrium and sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 115:325-8
Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1983; 15:10-7
Hamilton CA, Cheung MK, Osann K, et al. Uterine papillary serous and clear cell carcinomas predict for poorer survival compared to grade 3 endometrioid corpus cancers. Br J Cancer 2006; 94:642-6
Nonnett BM, Zaino JR, Hendric K. Endometrial carcinoma. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein’s pathology of the female genital tract. 5th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag. 2002; 551 –9
Silva EG, Deavers MT, Malpica A. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium: A review. Pathology 2007; 39: 134-8
Altrabulsi B, Malpica A, Deavers MT, Bodurka DC, Broaddus R, Silva EG. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1316-21
Ureyen I, Ilgin H, Turan T, et al. Undifferentiated uterine carcinoma: analysis of eighteen cases. J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 35: 372-6
Ross JC, Eifel PJ, Cox RS, Kempson RL, Hendrickson MR. Primary mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. A clinicopathologic and histochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 1983; 7:715-29
Felix AS, Weissfeld JL, Stone RA, et al. Factors associated with Type I and Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2010; 21: 1851-6
Scarfone G, Secomandi R, Parazzini F, et al. Clear cell and papillary serous endometrial carcinomas: survival in a series of 128 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287:351-6
Ureyen I, Karalok A, Cirik DA et al. A comparison of clinico-pathological characteristics of patients with serous and clear cell carcinoma of the uterus. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 13: 137-43
Lax SF, Kurman RJ, Pizer ES, Wu L, Ronnett BM. 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; 24:1201-8
Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H, van Putten WL, Creutzberg CL. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100:764-72
Zaino R. Pathologic indicators of prognosis in endometrial adenocarcinoma: selected aspects emphasizing the GOG experience. Pathol Ann 1995; 30(pt1):1-28
Gungorduk K, Ozdemir A, Ertas IE, et al. Is mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium a risk factor for lymph node involvement? A multicenter case-control study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015; 20:782-9
Sakuragi N, Hareyama H, Todo Y. Prognostic significance of serous and clear cell adenocarcinoma in surgically staged endometrial carcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 311-6.
Boruta DM 2nd, Gehrig PA, Groben PA, et al. Uterine serous and grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas: is there a survival difference. Cancer. 2004; 101:2214–21.
Nomura H, Aoki D, Suzuki N. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting para-aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 799-804.
Kumar S, Podratz KC, Bakkum-Gamez JN. Prospective assessment of the prevalance of pelvic, paraaortic and high paraaortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132: 38-43.
