Gynecologic oncology · 2012
Lymph node metastasis in endometrioid adenocarcinomas of the uterine corpus with occult cervical involvement.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boren Todd, Lea Jayanthi, Kehoe Siobhan, Miller David S, Richardson Debra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Surgical-pathologic studies have defined the risk of lymphatic metastasis in clinical stage I endometrial cancers. However, data on the risk of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancers involving the uterine cervix are less robust. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of lymphatic metastasis in patients with endometrial cancers with occult tumor extension to the uterine cervix.
METHODS: Our institutional tumor registry identified all patients with endometrioid endometrial cancers who underwent comprehensive surgical staging. Patients with gross involvement of the cervix and patients with extra-uterine disease were excluded. The risk of lymphatic metastasis associated with cervical involvement was analyzed in the context of known uterine risk factors for lymphatic metastasis such as age, depth of invasion, grade, and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI).
RESULTS: We identified 169 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate analyses revealed that LVSI (p<0.01), tumor grade (p<0.01), depth of myometrial invasion (p<0.01), tumor free distance (p<0.01), tumor size (p=0.02), and cervical involvement (p<0.01) were associated with lymphatic metastasis while age at diagnosis (p=0.85) was not. Multivariate analyses revealed that only LVSI (p<0.01), tumor grade (p=0.02), and depth of myometrial invasion (p=0.03) were independently associated with lymphatic metastasis.
CONCLUSION: Cervical involvement is not an independent predictor of lymphatic metastasis in endometrial cancer. In an unstaged patient, decisions regarding adjuvant treatment or additional diagnostic procedures such as lymphadenectomy should be based on uterine factors.
METHODS: Our institutional tumor registry identified all patients with endometrioid endometrial cancers who underwent comprehensive surgical staging. Patients with gross involvement of the cervix and patients with extra-uterine disease were excluded. The risk of lymphatic metastasis associated with cervical involvement was analyzed in the context of known uterine risk factors for lymphatic metastasis such as age, depth of invasion, grade, and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI).
RESULTS: We identified 169 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate analyses revealed that LVSI (p<0.01), tumor grade (p<0.01), depth of myometrial invasion (p<0.01), tumor free distance (p<0.01), tumor size (p=0.02), and cervical involvement (p<0.01) were associated with lymphatic metastasis while age at diagnosis (p=0.85) was not. Multivariate analyses revealed that only LVSI (p<0.01), tumor grade (p=0.02), and depth of myometrial invasion (p=0.03) were independently associated with lymphatic metastasis.
CONCLUSION: Cervical involvement is not an independent predictor of lymphatic metastasis in endometrial cancer. In an unstaged patient, decisions regarding adjuvant treatment or additional diagnostic procedures such as lymphadenectomy should be based on uterine factors.