Endometrial Cancer: Comparison of Patients with Synchronous Primary Carcinoma of the Endometrium and Ovary vs. Endometrial Carcinoma with Ovarian Metastases

Safety of ovarian preservation for premenopausal patients with FIGO stage I grade 2 and 3 endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the utilization and outcomes of ovarian preservation for premenopausal patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I grade 2 and 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma undergoing hysterectomy.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was accessed; patients aged ≤45 years diagnosed between January 2004 and December 2015 with FIGO stage I grade 2 or 3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, who underwent hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and had at least 1 month of follow-up, were identified. Overall survival was assessed following generation of Kaplan-Meier curves and compared with the log-rank test. A Cox model was constructed to control for a priori selected variables.

RESULTS

A total of 2941 patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified; 200 (6.8%) patients did not undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Rate of ovarian preservation was comparable between patients with grade 2 (n=163, 6.6%) and grade 3 (n=37, 7.7%) tumors (p=0.38). Patients who did not undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were younger (median 39 vs 41 years, p<0.001) and less likely to undergo surgical lymph node assessment (52% vs 76.2%, p<0.001). There was no difference in overall survival between patients who did and did not undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (p=0.94); 5 year overall survival rates were 96.6% and 97%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, including tumor grade, ovarian preservation was not associated with worse overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with grade 2 and 3 FIGO stage I endometrioid carcinoma undergoing hysterectomy, ovarian preservation is rarely performed while no clear detrimental effect on overall survival was found.

Comparison and analysis of the clinicopathological features of SCEO and ECOM

Objective

The aim of our study was to evaluate and compare the differences in the clinicopathological variables and overall survival (OS) of synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary (SCEO) and endometrial cancer with ovarian metastasis (ECOM). In addition, we aimed to determine the characteristics of and effective treatments for patients with SCEO to avoid misdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Materials and methods

A review of medical records from January 2009 to January 2017 revealed 111 patients with coexisting ovarian and endometrial carcinoma diagnosed at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University. Clinicopathological variables were analysed using the Chi square test and Student’s t test. The survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and statistical significance was analysed using the logarithmic rank test (univariate analysis).

Results

There were 51 cases of SCEO and 60 cases of ECOM. The mean age at diagnosis was 53.96 years and 55.41 years, respectively. There were no differences in age, menopausal status, BMI, CA125 level or complaints between the two groups. The 5-year survival rates were 58.8 and 36.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Significant differences were found in the endometrial tumour classification, ovarian cancer stage, and lymph node and omentum metastasis between SCEO and ECOM.

Conclusions

The differences found between SCEO and ECOM are of great clinical significance. Our results reveal useful prognostic and clinicopathological features. More aggressive therapies should be administered to both SCEO and ECOM patients, especially elderly patients and those with menopause, endometrial tumours, advanced omentum metastasis, and lymph node dissection.

Guidelines to Aid in the Distinction of Endometrial and Endocervical Carcinomas, and the Distinction of Independent Primary Carcinomas of the Endometrium and Adnexa From Metastatic Spread Between These and Other Sites

In most cases of suspected endometrial neoplasia tumor origin can be correctly assigned according to a combination of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features, even when the latter are based upon the examination of relatively small biopsy samples. However there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule which continue to create diagnostic difficulty, and sometimes difficulties persist even after the detailed examination of resection specimens. Among the most common problems encountered in practice are the distinction of primary endometrial and primary endocervical adenocarcinomas, and the determination of tumor origin when there is synchronous, multifocal involvement of gynecologic tract sites, for example the endometrium and the ovary. However, accurate diagnosis in these cases is important because this has significant staging, management and prognostic implications. In this review we discuss the value and limitations of key morphologic, immunophenotypic and molecular findings in these diagnostic scenarios.

Risk-based stratification of carcinomas concurrently involving the endometrium and ovary

OBJECTIVE

Determining whether carcinomas concurrently involving endometrium and ovary are independent primary tumors (IPTs) or endometrial carcinomas with ovarian metastases (at least stage IIIA endometrial cancers, IIIA-EC) using clinicopathologic criteria is often challenging. Recent genomic studies showed that most such tumors are clonally related. We sought to identify clinicopathologic features associated with clinical outcomes, and to separate women with these tumors into clinically low-risk and high-risk groups.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical and pathologic data from 74 women who, between 1993 and 2014, underwent primary surgery for endometrial cancer and had concurrent ovarian involvement.

RESULTS

The endometrial carcinomas were endometrioid (EECs, n = 41) or non-endometrioid (ENECs, n = 33). Nineteen (26%) cases were originally classified as IPTs using clinicopathologic criteria. Multivariate analysis revealed that lymph node involvement (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.38, 95% CI 1.13-5.02, p = 0.023) and non-endometrioid endometrial tumor histology (HR = 6.27, 95% CI 2.6-15.13, p < 0.001) were associated with poorer progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariate analysis of 65 women with known lymph node status revealed two prognostically distinct groups: a high-risk group comprising ENECs with ≥50% myometrial invasion irrespective of lymph node status (n = 21; median PFS 12.7 months, 95% CI, 9.24-19.8); and a low-risk group consisting of all EECs, as well as lymph node-negative ENECs with <50% myometrial invasion (n = 44, median PFS not reached). The risk-based classification was superior to the original classification of endometrial cancers as IPTs vs. IIIA-EC for predicting PFS (log-rank test, p < 0.001 vs. p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Our proposed risk-based stratification enables categorization of women with concurrent endometrial and ovarian tumors according to their likely clinical outcomes.

Use of Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Endometrial and Cervical Cancer - Results of a 2012 Germany-wide Survey

Introduction: Endoscopy has begun to play an increasingly important role in the surgical therapy of uterine cancers. To date, there is no data on the use of laparoscopy to treat endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC). Method: A Germany-wide, anonymised survey was done of all gynaecological clinics/endoscopy clinics, using a standardised questionnaire. Results: A total of 128 clinics responded: 16 university clinics (12.5 %), 30 hospitals offering maximum care (23.4 %), 66 general hospitals (51.5 %), 5 outpatient clinics (3,9 %), 4 physicians in private practice affiliated to hospitals (3.1 %) and 7 hospitals (5.4 %) which did not indicate status. Laparoscopy was used in the treatment of 82 % of all EC and 54 % of CC. Surgery for EC was done completely laparoscopically in 58 % of cases and with laparoscopic assistance using a vaginal approach in 32 % of cases. If lymphadenectomy (LNE) was additionally performed, this was done abdominally in 42 % of cases and laparoscopically in 53 %. Cervical cancer was treated by laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (HE) in 44 % of cases and by radical HE using a vaginal approach in 14 %. 4 % of hospitals reported the use of other endoscopic methods (e.g. DaVinci). While the majority of hospitals (43.3 %) treated more than 75 % of EC patients using laparoscopy, in many clinics (38.3 %) less than 25 % of CC patients were treated using endoscopy. Discussion: Laparoscopy is used more often in EC surgery as compared to surgery for CC. However, there are still major differences between hospitals with regard to case numbers, the number of uterine cancers treated using endoscopic surgery, and the type of endoscopic surgery.