Tumor proximity to serosal surface as an independent prognostic factor in FIGO stage 1 endometrial cancer

Objective: Determine if tumor distance from serosal surface is an independent prognostic factor for disease recurrence and survival in stage 1 endometrial cancer. Methods: 747 patients diagnosed with stage 1 endometrial cancer between 1984 and 2015 were identified from an institutional database. This retrospective cohort was evaluated to assess differences in tumor distance from the serosal surface, histologic subtype, histologic grade, use of adjuvant treatment, recurrence rates and overall survival. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine if variables of interest were related to recurrence and overall survival. Concordance correlation coefficients were used to compare our model to the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging. Results: Tumor distance from serosal surface ranged from 0 mm–21 mm. 47 (8.7%) patients experienced recurrence. Patients with tumors located 5 mm or less from the serosal surface were 2.24 times more likely to experience recurrent disease (HR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.16 to 4.31, p = 0.02). Concordance rates for disease recurrence were 0.573 and 0.583 for our tumor distance model compared to the 2009 FIGO staging (95% CI: 0.568 to 0.579 and 95% CI: 0.577 to 0.589). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that patients with tumors located 5 mm or less from the serosal surface have a two-fold increased risk of recurrence. Concordance rates are very similar between our model and the 2009 FIGO staging suggesting comparable predictability; these rates suggest there is room for improvement in both methods to predict disease recurrence and survival.

Tumor proximity; Independent prognostic factor; Endometrial cancer; Uterine cancer; Stage 1; Early stage; Serosal surface

[1] Takahashi K, Yunokawa M, Sasada S, Takehara Y, Miyasaka N, Kato T, et al. A novel prediction score for predicting the baseline risk of recurrence of stage I–II endometrial carcinoma. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 30: e8.

[2] Francis SR, Ager BJ, Do OA, Huang YJ, Soisson AP, Dodson MK, et al. Recurrent early stage endometrial cancer: patterns of recurrence and results of salvage therapy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 154: 38–44.

[3] Li R, Shinde A, Han E, Lee S, Beriwal S, Harkenrider M, et al. A proposal for a new classification of “unfavorable risk criteria” in patients with stage I endometrial cancer. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2019; 29: 1086–1093.

[4] Santoro A, Piermattei A, Inzani F, Angelico G, Valente M, Arciuolo D, et al. Frozen section accurately allows pathological characterization of endometrial cancer in patients with a preoperative ambiguous or inconclusive diagnoses: our experience. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 1096.

[5] 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: 2035–2041.

[6] Veade AE, Foote J, Ehrisman J, Broadwater G, Davidson BA, Lee PS, et al. Associations between lymphovascular space invasion, nodal recurrence, and survival in patients with surgical stage I endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2019; 17: 80.

[7] Kokcu A, Kurtoglu E, Celik H, Kefeli M, Tosun M, Onal M. Is surgical staging necessary for patients with low-risk endometrial cancer? A retrospective clinical analysis. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2015; 16: 5331–5335.

[8] The American Cancer Society. Key statistics for endometrial cancer. 2019. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/endome trial-cancer/about/key-statistics.html#references (Accessed: 11 December 2020).

[9] Kong TW, Chang SJ, Paek J, Lee Y, Chun M, Ryu HS. Risk group criteria for tailoring adjuvant treatment in patients with endometrial cancer: a validation study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group criteria. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2015; 26: 32–39.

[10] McCluggage WG. Pathologic staging of endometrial carcinomas: selected areas of difficulty. Advances in Anatomic Pathology. 2018; 25: 71–84.

[11] Burke WM, Orr J, Leitao M, Salom E, Gehrig P, Olawaiye AB, et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014; 134: 385–392.

[12] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Endometrial cancer. 2015. Available at: https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Practice-Bulletins/Com mittee-on-Practice-Bulletins-Gynecology/Endometrial-Cancer (Accessed: 11 December 2020).

[13] Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Quinn MA, Beller U, Benedet JL, et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2006; 95: S105– S143.

[14] Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL, Zaino RJ, Spirtos NM, Bloss JD, et al. A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2004; 92: 744–751.

[15] Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, Lybeert ML, Jobsen JJ, Wárlám-Rodenhuis CC, et al. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post-operative radiation therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1404–1411.

[16] Lutz MH, Underwood PB, Kreutner A, Miller MC. Endometrial carcinoma: a new method of classification of therapeutic and prognostic significance. Gynecologic Oncology. 1978; 6: 83–94.

[17] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: uterine neoplasms. 2019. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uteri ne.pdf (Accessed: 11 December 2020).