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
Review
. 2021 Sep 30;13(19):4918.
doi: 10.3390/cancers13194918.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Adenomyosis

Paolo Casadio  1 , Antonio Raffone  1   2 , Manuela Maletta  1 , Antonio Travaglino  3 , Diego Raimondo  1 , Ivano Raimondo  4   5 , Angela Santoro  6 , Roberto Paradisi  1 , Gian Franco Zannoni  6 , Antonio Mollo  7 , Renato Seracchioli  1
Affiliations
Review

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Endometrial Cancer and Adenomyosis

Paolo Casadio et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

A better endometrial cancer (EC) prognosis in patients with coexistent adenomyosis has been reported. Unfortunately, it is still unclear if this better prognosis is related to a more favorable clinical profile of adenomyosis patients. We aimed to evaluate differences in the clinical profiles of EC patients with and without adenomyosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching seven electronics databases for all studies that allowed extraction of data about clinical characteristics in EC patients with and without adenomyosis. Clinical characteristics assessed were: age, Body Mass Index (BMI), premenopausal status, and nulliparity. Mean difference in mean ± standard deviation (SD) or odds ratio (OR) for clinical characteristics between EC patients with and without adenomyosis were calculated for each included study and as a pooled estimate, and graphically reported on forest plots with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Z test was used for assessing the overall effect by considering a p value < 0.05 as significant. Overall, eight studies with 5681 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and seven studies with 4366 patients in the quantitative analysis. Pooled mean difference in mean ± SD between EC women with and without adenomyosis was -1.19 (95% CI: -3.18 to 0.80; p = 0.24) for age, and 0.23 (95% CI: -0.62 to 1.07; p = 0.60) for BMI. When compared to EC women without adenomyosis, EC women with adenomyosis showed a pooled OR of 1.53 (95% CI: 0.92 to 2.54; p = 0.10) for premenopausal status, and of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.87; p = 0.007) for nulliparity. In conclusion, there are not significant differences in clinical characteristics between EC patients with and without adenomyosis, with the exception for nulliparity. Clinical features seem to not underlie the better EC prognosis of patients with adenomyosis compared to patients without adenomyosis.

Keywords: carcinoma; endometriosis; endometrium; malignancy; myometrium; tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forest plot of mean difference in mean ± standard deviation (SD) of age between EC patients with and without adenomyosis, for each included study and as pooled estimate.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of mean difference in mean ± standard deviation (SD) of body mass index between EC patients with and without adenomyosis, for each included study and as pooled estimate.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of odds ratio for premenopausal status in endometrial cancer patients with adenomyosis compared to endometrial cancer patients without adenomyosis, for each included study and as pooled estimate.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of odds ratio for nulliparity in endometrial cancer patients with adenomyosis compared to endometrial cancer patients without adenomyosis, for each included study and as pooled estimate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Raffone A., Troisi J., Boccia D., Travaglino A., Capuano G., Insabato L., Mollo A., Guida M., Zullo F. Metabolomics in endometrial cancer diagnosis: A systematic review. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020;99:1135–1146. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13847. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Travaglino A., Raffone A., Gencarelli A., Mollo A., Guida M., Insabato L., Santoro A., Zannoni G.F., Zullo F. TCGA Classification of Endometrial Cancer: The Place of Carcinosarcoma. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2020;26:2067–2073. doi: 10.1007/s12253-020-00829-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lu K.H., Broaddus R.R. Endometrial Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;383:2053–2064. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1514010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015;65:5–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Troisi J., Raffone A., Travaglino A., Belli G., Belli C., Anand S., Giugliano L., Cavallo P., Scala G., Symes S., et al. Development and Validation of a Serum Metabolomic Signature for Endometrial Cancer Screening in Postmenopausal Women. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020;3:e2018327. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.18327. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources