Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):286-92.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318240de51.

Nodal metastasis risk in endometrioid endometrial cancer

Affiliations

Nodal metastasis risk in endometrioid endometrial cancer

Michael R Milam et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the risk for nodal metastasis in women with endometrial cancer based on uterine characteristics on pathology.

Methods: From a study of staging for uterine cancer, women were identified as being at low risk for nodal metastasis based on three specific criteria on final pathology reports: 1) less than 50% invasion, 2) tumor size less than 2 cm, and 3) well or moderately differentiated endometrioid histology. If the uterine specimen did not meet all three criteria, it was viewed as high risk for nodal metastasis.

Results: Nine hundred seventy-one women were included in this analysis. Approximately 40% (or 389 of 971) of patients in this study were found to be at low risk, with a rate of nodal metastasis of only 0.8% (3 of 389; exact 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-2.2). No statistical differences in median age, body mass index, race, performance status, missing clinical data, or open or minimally invasive techniques were found among the patients with and without nodal metastases. Patients with high-risk characteristics of their uterine specimens compared with those with low-risk characteristics have 6.3 times the risk of nodal metastasis (95% CI 1.67-23.8, P=.007).

Conclusion: Low-risk endometrioid uterine cancer criteria may be used to help guide treatment planning for reoperation in patients with incomplete surgical staging information.

Level of evidence: II.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial Disclosure: The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of patients through study
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of logistic model.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Schink JC, Lurain JR, Wallemark CB, Chmiel JS. Tumor size in endometrial cancer: a prognostic factor for lymph node metastasis. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70:216–219. - PubMed
    1. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, et al. Low-risk corpus cancer: is lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy necessary? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1506–1519. - PubMed
    1. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:11–18. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types