Utilization of adjuvant therapies and their impact on survival for women with stage IIIC endometrial adenocarcinoma

Management of Patients Diagnosed with Endometrial Cancer: Comparison of Guidelines

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in Europe and its management involves a variety of health professionals. In recent years, big discoveries were made concerning the management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, particularly in the field of molecular biology and minimally invasive surgery. This requires the continuous updating of guidelines and protocols over the years. In this paper, we aim to summarize and compare common points and disparities among protocols for management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer by leading international gynecological oncological societies. We therefore systematically report the parallel among the guidelines based on the various steps patients with endometrial cancer usually undergo. The comparison between American and European protocols revealed some relevant disparities, in particular regarding surgical staging, molecular biology application as a prognostic tool and follow up regimens. This could possibly cause differences in interpreting and applying protocols in clinical practice in small centers, leading to a lack of adherence to guidelines or even prompting a confusing mix of them.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy or radiotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynecological cancer in the world. However, the available adjuvant therapies, chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT), demonstrated several limitations when used alone. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) based on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Methods

A literature search was performed on five databases and one clinical trial registry to obtain all relevant articles. Search for studies was completed on September 9, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the overall hazard ratio with the 95% Confidence Interval.

Results

A total of 17 articles with 23,975 patients in the CRT vs RT group and 50,502 patients in the CRT vs CT group were included. The OS Hazard Ratios (HR) of CRT compared to RT was 0.66 (95% CI [0.59-0.75]; P < 0.00001). Compared to CT, the OS HR was 0.70 (95% CI [0.64-0.78]; P < 0.00001). CRT also significantly improved the DFS compared to CT only (HR 0.79, 95% CI [0.64-0.97]; P = 0.02) However, CRT did not improve the DFS compared to RT only, with HR of 0.71 (95% CI [0.46-1.09]; P = 0.12).

Conclusion

Adjuvant CRT can significantly improve OS compared to CT or RT alone and improve the DFS compared to CT alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Further research is needed to identify the optimal CRT regimen, and to whom CRT will be most beneficial.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in stage III endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the impact of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on the survival of patients with stage III endometrial cancer (EC) compared with chemotherapy (CT) alone.

METHODS

Articles involving adjuvant CRT versus CT on survival in stage III EC were retrieved from PubMed and EMBASE. Hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were collected and pooled, and publication bias was measured by Begg's and Egger's test. Quality of researches was measured by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the modified Jadad scale.

RESULTS

Eleven were included in the statistical analysis. A significant advantage of CRT over CT on OS was shown (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.70). Further subgroup analysis suggested the advantage was mostly associated with stage IIIC (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). A similar result favoring CRT was also reached on RFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.93). No significant publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSION

CRT was associated with a better OS and RFS than CT alone in stage III EC patients.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multidisciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated an international multidisciplinary development group consisting of practicing clinicians and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of endometrial carcinoma (27 experts across Europe). To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature published since 2014, identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the development group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 191 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. The guidelines comprehensively cover endometrial carcinoma staging, definition of prognostic risk groups integrating molecular markers, pre- and intra-operative work-up, fertility preservation, management for early, advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease and palliative treatment. Principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.

Endometrial cancer: A society of gynecologic oncology evidence-based review and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology's Clinical Practice Committee published a clinical update reviewing the treatment of women with endometrial cancer. At that time, there had been significant advances in the diagnosis, work-up, surgical management, and available treatment options allowing for more optimal care of affected women. Despite these advances, the incidence of endometrial cancer as well as the deaths attributable to the disease have continued to rise; from 1987 to 2014 there has been a 75% increase in cases and almost 300% increase in endometrial cancer deaths. Fortunately, since then, there has been progress in the treatment of patients with endometrial cancer with increased utilization of molecular pathology, greater understanding of genetic predisposition, enhanced methods for lymph node assessment, a broader understanding of the efficacy of radiation and chemotherapy, and a more efficient approach to survivorship and surveillance. The purpose of this document is to present a comprehensive review of this progress.

MANUSCRIPT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The authors reviewed the available evidence, contributed to the development of this manuscript, provided critical review of the guidelines, and finalized the manuscript recommendations. The review was also presented to and approved by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee, SGO Publications Committee, and the SGO board members prior to submission for publication. The recommendations for this manuscript were developed by a panel of gynecologic oncologists who were members of the SGO Clinical Practice and Education Committees. Panelists reviewed and considered evidence from current uterine cancer literature. The terminology used in these guidelines was adopted from the ASCCP management guidelines [1] using a two-part rating system to grade the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence (Table 1). The rating for each recommendation is given in parentheses.

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Lymph Node Number Predicts the Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Node-Positive Endometrial Cancer Patients

This study aimed to evaluate the value of lymph node (LN) number as a predictor for adjuvant treatment in node-positive endometrial cancer. Data of 441 patients diagnosed with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC endometrial cancer and who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy between 2009 and 2015 from the Taiwan Cancer Registry were reviewed. The patients were stratified based on the number of positive LN as follows: 1, 2-5, and ≥ 6. The overall survival (OS) was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. In multivariable analysis, chemoradiotherapy was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.90; p = 0.01) compared with chemotherapy alone. Patients with ≥ 6 positive LNs were associated with a worse OS (HR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.25-3.95; p = 0.006) and those with 2-5 LNs were not associated with a worse OS (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.94-2.59; p = 0.09) compared to patients with one LN. When stratified based on LN number, chemoradiotherapy was found to significantly improve the 5-year OS of patients with ≥ 6 positive LNs compared to chemotherapy alone (35.9% vs. 70.0%, p < 0.001). No significant differences between chemotherapy alone and chemoradiotherapy were observed in 5-year OS among patients with one LN (73.1% vs. 80.8%, p = 0.31) or 2-5 positive LNs (71.4% vs. 75.7%, p = 0.68). Lymph node number may be used to identify node-positive endometrial cancer patients who are likely to have improved OS with intensification of adjuvant therapy.

Radiation Records in the National Cancer Database: Variations in Coding and/or Practice Can Significantly Alter Survival Results

PURPOSE

The aim of the current work was to quantify internally inconsistent and anomalous radiation therapy (RT) data in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and determine their association with overall survival (OS) using node-positive uterine cancer as a test clinical scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all NCDB participants with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC1 to IIIC2 uterine cancer treated with hysterectomy and adjuvant RT between 1998 and 2012. Variables that were reviewed to identify anomalous data included RT site, modality, dose, fractions, timing, duration, and stage. We used χ² testing to associate anomalous data with reporting facility and demographic variables. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison between cohorts was performed using the log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 14,298 analyzed participants, 2,288 (16.0%) had one or more anomalous data entry, 538 (3.8%) likely because of an incomplete RT course. χ² testing suggested differences in anomalous data prevalence by reporting facility type (P = .0007), geographic region (P < .001), distance from participants' homes (P < .001), diagnosis year (P < .001), and location of RT relative to reporting facility (P = .0038). Five-year OS in those with one or more anomalous data entry was 51.3% versus 58.0% for those without anomalous data (P < .001), and anomalous data remained significantly associated with OS on multivariable analysis. After excluding insufficient, excessive, or unknown total RT dose, anomalous data were no longer significant on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

The overwhelming majority of RT data within the NCDB seem to be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Nevertheless, approximately one eighth of participants in this test clinical scenario had adjuvant RT data that were internally inconsistent or outside generously defined norms. The presence of anomalous RT data was significantly associated with compromised OS, an effect not observed after correcting for total RT dose.

Impact of different adjuvant treatment approaches on survival in stage III endometrial cancer: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Patients with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III endometrial cancer (EC) have a substantial risk of adverse outcomes. After surgery, adjuvant therapy is recommended with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), chemotherapy (CT) or both EBRT and CT. Recent trials suggest that EBRT + CT is superior to EBRT or CT alone but also results in more toxicity. We have compared the outcome of different adjuvant treatments in a population-based cohort to identify subgroups that benefit most from EBRT + CT.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with FIGO stage III EC and treated with surgery in 2005-2016 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); associations with adjuvant treatment were analysed using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1241 eligible patients, EBRT + CT was associated with a better OS than CT (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.34-2.52) and EBRT alone (HR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.05-1.79). In stage IIIC, there was a significant benefit of EBRT + CT compared with CT or EBRT alone. In stage IIIA-B, there was no difference between EBRT + CT or EBRT alone. In endometrioid EC (EEC) and carcinosarcomas, EBRT + CT was associated with a better OS than CT or EBRT alone. For uterine serous cancers, there was no survival benefit of EBRT + CT over CT. In all analysis by stage and histology, any adjuvant treatment was superior to no adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study, adjuvant EBRT + CT was associated with improved OS compared with CT or EBRT alone in FIGO stage IIIC EC, EEC and carcinosarcoma. This suggests that application of EBRT + CT in stage III should be further stratified according to these subgroups.

Chemotherapy, Radiation, or Combination Therapy for Stage III Uterine Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of women with stage III uterine cancer treated with chemotherapy alone, external beam radiation alone, and combination chemotherapy and radiation.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify women with stage III endometrioid, serous, and clear cell uterine cancer treated with either chemotherapy (with or without vaginal brachytherapy) alone, external beam radiation (with or without brachytherapy), or combination chemotherapy and external beam radiation (with or without vaginal brachytherapy) from 2004 to 2015. Survival was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models and adjusted survival curves after propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the clinical and demographic characteristics between the cohorts.

RESULTS

Of the 20,873 patients identified, 9,456 (45.3%) received chemotherapy alone, 2,417 (11.6%) were treated with radiation alone, and 9,000 (43.1%) received chemotherapy in combination with external beam radiation. Use of combination therapy was 33.0% in 2004, and then rose to 50.5% in 2015. The mortality of the cohort was 33.1% and median survival was 115 months. Within the cohort, combination therapy was associated with a 23% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; 95% CI 0.73-0.80) compared with chemotherapy alone. Similar findings of decreased mortality were noted in subgroup analyses for both stage IIIA (HR=0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.98) and stage IIIC (HR=0.79; 95% CI 0.75-0.84) tumors. Similarly, when compared with radiation alone, combination therapy was accompanied by a 19% decrease in mortality (HR=0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.89). Combination chemoradiation was associated with decreased mortality across all of the histologic subtypes.

CONCLUSION

Among women with stage III uterine cancer, combination chemotherapy and external beam radiation is associated with decreased mortality compared with chemotherapy or radiation alone.

LncRNA DCST1-AS1 Was Upregulated in Endometrial Carcinoma and May Sponge miR-92a-3p to Upregulate Notch1

Introduction

The functions of DCST1-AS1 have been investigated in liver cancer, while its role in endometrial carcinoma (EC) remains hardly known. This study aimed to analyze the role of DCST1-AS1 in EC.

Methods

Paired EC and non-tumor tissue samples were obtained from 62 EC patients. These patients were followed up for 5 years since their admission to record their survival conditions. HEC-1 cells were transfected with DCST1-AS1, Notch1 vectors, miRNA negative control or miR-92a-3p mimic. Luciferase activity was measured. QPCR and Western blot were applied to determine the RNA level and protein expression, respectively. The invasion and migration of HEC-1 cells were analyzed by Transwell assay.

Results

We in this study found that DCST1-AS1 was upregulated in EC. Survival analysis revealed that high levels of DCST1-AS1 expression predicted poor survival of EC patients. Bioinformatics analysis revealed that miR-92a-3p may bind DCST1-AS1 and the interaction between them was further confirmed by dual-luciferase activity assay. However, overexpression of miR-92a-3p and DCST1-AS1 failed to affect the expression of each other. Moreover, DCST1-AS1 overexpression led to upregulated Notch1 and increased cancer cell invasion and migration rates. Overexpression of miR-92a-3p played an opposite role and attenuated the effects of DCST1-AS1 overexpression.

Discussion

DCST1-AS1 is downregulated in EC and may sponge miR-92a-3p, thereby promoting cancer cell invasion and migration.

A multi-institutional analysis of sequential versus 'sandwich' adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial carcinoma

Objective

To analyze the outcomes of sequential or sandwich chemotherapy (ChT) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with node-positive endometrial cancer (EC).

Methods

Data from 4 centers were collected retrospectively for 179 patients with stage IIIC EC treated with postoperative RT and ChT (paclitaxel and carboplatin). Patients were either treated with 6 cycles of ChT followed by RT (sequential arm; 96 patients) or with 3 cycles of ChT, RT, and an additional 3 cycles of ChT (sandwich arm; 83 patients). Prognostic factors affecting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed.

Results

The 5-year OS and PFS rates were 64% and 59%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 41 months (range, 5–167 months). The 5-year OS rates were significantly higher in the sandwich than sequential arms (74% vs. 56%; p=0.03) and the difference for 5-year PFS rates was nearly significant (65% vs. 54%; p=0.05). In univariate analysis, treatment strategy, age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, pathology, rate of myometrial invasion, and grade were prognostic factors for OS and PFS. In multivariate analysis, non-endometrioid histology, advanced FIGO stage, and adjuvant sequential ChT and RT were negative predictors for OS, whereas only non-endometrioid histology was a prognostic factor for PFS.

Conclusion

Postoperative adjuvant ChT and RT for stage IIIC EC patients, either given sequentially or sandwiched, offers excellent clinical efficacy and acceptably low toxicity. Our data support the superiority of the sandwich regimen compared to the sequential strategy in stage IIIC EC patients for OS.

Role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer with nonbulky lymph node metastasis: Comparison of comprehensive surgical staging and sentinel lymph node algorithm

OBJECTIVES

To compare survival and progression outcomes between 2 nodal assessment approaches in patients with nonbulky stage IIIC endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIC EC treated at 2 institutions were retrospectively identified. At 1 institution, a historical series (2004-2008) was treated with systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (LND cohort). At the other institution, more contemporary patients (2006-2013) were treated using a sentinel lymph node algorithm (SLN cohort). Outcomes (hazard ratios [HRs]) within the first 5 years after surgery were compared between cohorts using Cox models adjusted for type of adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

The study included 104 patients (48 LND, 56 SLN). The use of chemoradiotherapy was similar in the 2 cohorts (46% LND vs 50% SLN), but the use of chemotherapy alone (19% vs 36%) or radiotherapy alone (15% vs 2%) differed. Although there was evidence of higher risk of cause-specific death (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.79-5.58; P = 0.14) and lower risk of para-aortic progression (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.05-1.42; P = 0.12) for the LND group, the associations did not meet statistical significance. The risk of progression was not significantly different between the groups (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.60-2.67; P =0 .53). In parsimonious multivariable models, high-risk tumor characteristics and nonendometrioid type were independently associated with lower cause-specific survival and progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In EC patients with nonbulky positive lymph nodes, use of the SLN algorithm with limited nodal dissection does not compromise survival compared with LND. Aggressive pathologic features of the primary tumor are the strongest determinants of prognosis.

Adjuvant combined-modality therapy for stage IIIC endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To identify the optimal adjuvant treatment regimen for patients with endometrioid and non-endometrioid node-positive endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 249 women with FIGO 2009 stage IIIC endometrial cancer at our institution who underwent surgical staging from 1985 to 2015 followed by external beam radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT), or a combination of CT + RT. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rate for all patients was 65%. Adjuvant CT + RT conferred higher rates of 5-year DSS as compared to CT alone in patients with grade 3 endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors (61% vs. 27%, P = 0.04 and 67% vs. 38%, P = 0.02, respectively). Among patients with non-endometrioid tumors, treatment with concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by additional sequential chemotherapy had higher 5-year DSS rates than with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone (74% vs. 50%, P = 0.02). The 3-year pelvic recurrence rate was 5% with RT ± CT and 35% with CT alone (P < 0.001) for all patients. No paraaortic nodal failures were observed following extended-field RT, but 14% of patients who received pelvic-only RT or CT alone developed recurrences in the paraaortic nodes (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined-modality therapy including adjuvant external beam pelvic radiotherapy yields excellent outcomes for patients with all subtypes of node-positive endometrial cancer. The most pronounced DSS advantage from adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was evident in women with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.

[Primary management of endometrial carcinoma. Joint recommendations of the French society of gynecologic oncology (SFOG) and of the French college of obstetricians and gynecologists (CNGOF)]

OBJECTIVES

The management of endometrial carcinoma is constantly evolving. The SFOG and the CNGOF decided to jointly update the previous French recommendations (Institut national du cancer 2011) and to adapt to the French practice the 2015 recommendations elaborated at the time of joint European consensus conference with the participation of the three concerned European societies (ESGO, ESTRO, ESMO).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A strict methodology was used. A steering committee was put together. A systematic review of the literature since 2011 has been carried out. A first draft of the recommendations has been elaborated, with emphasis on high level of evidence. An external review by users representing all the concerned discipines and all kinds of practice was completed. Three hundred and four comments were sent by 54 reviewers.

RESULTS

The management of endometrial carcinoma requires a precise preoperative workup. A provisional estimate of the final stage is provided. This estimation impact the level of surgical staging. Surgery should use a minimal invasive approach. The final pathology is the key of the decision concerning adjuvant therapy, which involves surveillance, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, or chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The management algorithms allow a fast, state of the art based, answer to the clinical questions raised by the management of endometrial cancer. They must be used only in the setting of a multidisciplinary team at all stages of the management.