PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2024; 34(02): 309-323
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777355
Review Article

Impact of the 2023 FIGO Staging System for Endometrial Cancer on the Use of Imaging Services: An Indian Perspective

Anuradha Chandramohan 
1   Department of Radiology, Abdominal Imaging Unit, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Smitha Manchanda 
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Rupa Renganathan 
3   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospitals, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Palak Bhavesh Popat
4   Department of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Diva Shah
5   Department of Radiology, The Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
,
Ekta Dhamija 
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Anitha Sen 
6   Department of Radiology, Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
› Institutsangaben Funding None declared.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

The new 2023 update of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system for endometrial cancer incorporates the advances made in the understanding of the pathology and molecular classifications into the staging system. While the new staging system aids in precision medicine and may lead to better documentation of prognostic risk categories of endometrial cancer, it is complex and calls for an integrated approach and better communication between multiple disciplines involved in the management of endometrial cancer. In this review article, we address how the referral patterns to imaging services might change considering the updated staging system for endometrial cancer. We also discuss the practical aspects and nuances involved in the radiology service delivery and reporting practices as we adopt the new FIGO staging system for managing endometrial cancer patients.

Keywords

FIGO endometrial cancer staging - imaging - staging - endometrial cancer - uterus

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the concept/design, a draft of the manuscript, and its editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. A.C. is the guarantor for the contents of the manuscript.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Dezember 2023

© 2023. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Berek JS, Matias-Guiu X, Creutzberg C. et al; Endometrial Cancer Staging Subcommittee, FIGO Women's Cancer Committee. FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023; 162 (02) 383-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Höhn AK, Brambs CE, Hiller GGR, May D, Schmoeckel E, Horn LC. 2020 WHO classification of female genital tumors. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81 (10) 1145-1153
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mathur P, Sathishkumar K, Chaturvedi M. et al; ICMR-NCDIR-NCRP Investigator Group. Cancer Statistics, 2020: report from National Cancer Registry Programme, India. JCO Glob Oncol 2020; 6: 1063-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barnes EA, Martell K, Parra-Herran C, Taggar AS, Donovan E, Leung E. Substantial lymphovascular space invasion predicts worse outcomes in early-stage endometrioid endometrial cancer. Brachytherapy 2021; 20 (03) 527-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 O'Sullivan B, Brierley J, Byrd D. et al The TNM classification of malignant tumours-towards common understanding and reasonable expectations. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (07) 849-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Concin N, Creutzberg CL, Vergote I. et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Virchows Arch 2021; 478 (02) 153-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stålberg K, Bjurberg M, Borgfeldt C. et al. Lymphovascular space invasion as a predictive factor for lymph node metastases and survival in endometrioid endometrial cancer - a Swedish Gynecologic Cancer Group (SweGCG) study. Acta Oncol 2019; 58 (11) 1628-1633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mueller JJ, Pedra Nobre S, Braxton K. et al. Incidence of pelvic lymph node metastasis using modern FIGO staging and sentinel lymph node mapping with ultrastaging in surgically staged patients with endometrioid and serous endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157 (03) 619-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD. et al; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013; 497 (7447) 67-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mir MM, Dar NA, Gochhait S, Zargar SA, Ahangar AG, Bamezai RN. p53 mutation profile of squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus in Kashmir (India): a high-incidence area. Int J Cancer 2005; 116 (01) 62-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khan MA, Tiwari D, Dongre A. et al. Exploring the p53 connection of cervical cancer pathogenesis involving north-east Indian patients. PLoS One 2020; 15 (09) e0238500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maheshwari E, Nougaret S, Stein EB. et al. Update on MRI in evaluation and treatment of endometrial cancer. Radiographics 2022; 42 (07) 2112-2130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abu-Rustum N, Yashar C, Arend R. et al. Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21 (02) 181-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Oaknin A, Bosse TJ, Creutzberg CL. et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022; 33 (09) 860-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Otero-García MM, Mesa-Álvarez A, Nikolic O. et al. Role of MRI in staging and follow-up of endometrial and cervical cancer: pitfalls and mimickers. Insights Imaging 2019; 10 (01) 19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lakhani A, Khan SR, Bharwani N. et al. FDG PET/CT pitfalls in gynecologic and genitourinary oncologic imaging. Radiographics 2017; 37 (02) 577-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E. et al. Endometrial cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 2019; 29 (02) 792-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Haldorsen IS, Salvesen HB. What is the best preoperative imaging for endometrial cancer?. Curr Oncol Rep 2016; 18 (04) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Manchanda S, Subashree AB, Renganathan R. et al. Imaging recommendations for diagnosis, staging, and management of uterine cancer. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2023; 44 (01) 110-118
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Meissnitzer M, Forstner R. MRI of endometrium cancer - how we do it. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16: 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nougaret S, Lakhman Y, Vargas HA. et al. From staging to prognostication: achievements and challenges of MR imaging in the assessment of endometrial cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2017; 25 (03) 611-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sbarra M, Lupinelli M, Brook OR, Venkatesan AM, Nougaret S. Imaging of endometrial cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2023; 61 (04) 609-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G. et al. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 2004; 231 (02) 372-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Guo Y, Wang P, Wang P. et al. Myometrial invasion and overall staging of endometrial carcinoma: assessment using fusion of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. OncoTargets Ther 2017; 10: 5937-5943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M. Evaluating myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: comparison of reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018; 17 (01) 28-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fujii S, Kido A, Baba T. et al. Subendometrial enhancement and peritumoral enhancement for assessing endometrial cancer on dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84 (04) 581-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yamashita Y, Harada M, Sawada T, Takahashi M, Miyazaki K, Okamura H. Normal uterus and FIGO stage I endometrial carcinoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 186 (02) 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Long B, Clarke MA, Morillo ADM, Wentzensen N, Bakkum-Gamez JN. Ultrasound detection of endometrial cancer in women with postmenopausal bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157 (03) 624-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jones ER, O'Flynn H, Njoku K, Crosbie EJ. Detecting endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynaecol 2021; 23 (02) 103-112
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yitta S, Hecht EM, Mausner EV, Bennett GL. Normal or abnormal? Demystifying uterine and cervical contrast enhancement at multidetector CT. Radiographics 2011; 31 (03) 647-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McEvoy SH, Nougaret S, Abu-Rustum NR. et al. Fertility-sparing for young patients with gynecologic cancer: How MRI can guide patient selection prior to conservative management. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017; 42 (10) 2488-2512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Cromi A. et al. Lymphoceles, lymphorrhea, and lymphedema after laparoscopic and open endometrial cancer staging. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19 (01) 259-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dejanovic D, Hansen NL, Loft A. PET/CT variants and pitfalls in gynecological cancers. Semin Nucl Med 2021; 51 (06) 593-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ulaner GA, Lyall A. Identifying and distinguishing treatment effects and complications from malignancy at FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2013; 33 (06) 1817-1834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sharma P, Kumar R, Singh H. et al. Carcinoma endometrium: role of 18-FDG PET/CT for detection of suspected recurrence. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37 (07) 649-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gholkar NS, Saha SC, Prasad G, Bhattacharya A, Srinivasan R, Suri V. The accuracy of integrated [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in detection of pelvic and para-aortic nodal metastasis in patients with high risk endometrial cancer. World J Nucl Med 2014; 13 (03) 170-177
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar