Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Carcinoma Endometrium

Abstract

Aparna Mullangath Prakasan

Objective The study aimed to see the clinical outcome and to identify prognostic factors for survival in patients with carcinoma endometrium.

Methods Patients registered at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India, with carcinoma endometrium from January 2009 to December 2013 were identified from hospital registry. Data regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment schedules, and follow-up were collected using a structured proforma. Survival estimates were generated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Univariate analysis was done using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariate analysis using the Cox regression model was performed to determine the impact of prognostic factors on outcome. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS software version 11.

Results The median follow-up of the 686 patients was 95 months (range 3–178 months).There were 432 stage 1 (63%), 100 stage II (14.6%), 108 stage III (15.7%), and 46 stage IV patients (6.7%). The 5-year overall survival was 89.2%. Prognostic factors for survival on univariate analysis were age 60 years or older, nonendometrioid histology, high-grade tumor, cervical stromal involvement, para-aortic node involvement, negative progesterone receptor expression, deep myometrial invasion advanced stage, surgery versus no surgery, serosal involvement, and ovarian and fallopian tube involvement. However, on multivariate analysis, age over 60 years, higher histological grade, advanced stage, and deep myometrial and parametrial invasion were associated with significantly poorer survival.

Conclusion We found that age over 60 years at presentation, higher grade, advanced stage, deep myometrial invasion, and parametrial invasion were associated with poorer survival.

Keywords

prognosis - radiotherapy - surgery - survival - uterine neoplasms

Disclaimers

None.

IRB Approval

Approved by the scientific committee, institutional review board, Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. IRB number: 09/2018/08

Publication History

Article published online:
06 February 2023

• References

• 1 Murthy NS, Shalini S, Sastry NB, Suman G, Sreekantaiah P, Mathew A. Increase in incidence of cancer of corpus uteri: estimation of time trends—an Indian scenario. Eur J Cancer Prev 2011; 20 (01) 25-32
• 2 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): 2035-2041
• 3 Creutzberg CL, van Stiphout RG, Nout RA. et al. Nomograms for prediction of outcome with or without adjuvant radiation therapy for patients with endometrial cancer: a pooled analysis of PORTEC-1 and PORTEC-2 trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91 (03) 530-539
• 4 Kim M, Kwon BS, Chang HK. et al. Survival outcomes of adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in women with stage I serous papillary and clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium: a Korean multicenter study. J Gynecol Oncol 2019; 30 (03) e44
• 5 van der Putten LJM, Visser NCM, van de Vijver K. et al. Added value of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and L1 cell adhesion molecule expression to histology-based endometrial carcinoma recurrence prediction models: an ENITEC collaboration study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28 (03) 514-523
• 6 Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H. et al; PORTEC Study Group. Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375 (9717): 816-823
• 7 Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL. et al; Gynecologic Oncology Group. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 92 (03) 744-751
• 8 Zusterzeel PL, Bekkers RL, Hendriks JC, Neesham DN, Rome RM, Quinn MA. Prognostic factors for recurrence in patients with FIGO stage I and II, intermediate or high risk endometrial cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87 (02) 240-246
• 9 Wright JD, Lewin SN, Barrena Medel NI. et al. Endometrial cancer in the oldest old: tumor characteristics, patterns of care, and outcome. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 122 (01) 69-74
• 10 Tuomi T, Pasanen A, Leminen A, Bützow R, Loukovaara M. Prediction of site-specific tumor relapses in patients with stage I-II endometrioid endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017; 27 (05) 923-930
• 11 Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F. et al; ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consensus Conference Working Group. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26 (01) 2-30
• 12 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 (05) 1141-1149
• 13 Disaia PJ. Predicting parametrial involvement in endometrial cancer: is this the end for radical hysterectomies in stage II endometrial cancers?. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (05) 1016-1017
• 14 Altman AD, Ferguson SE, Atenafu EG. et al. Canadian high risk endometrial cancer (CHREC) consortium: analyzing the clinical behavior of high risk endometrial cancers. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 139 (02) 268-274
• 15 Bosse T, Nout RA, McAlpine JN. et al. Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol 2018; 42 (05) 561-568