#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

The current staging for uterine body malignancies and its importance for clinical practice


Authors: Borek Sehnal 1;  Kamila Benková 2;  Emanuela Kmoníčková 3;  Daniel Driák 1;  Zuzana Špůrková 2;  Kateřina Maxová 1;  Jiří Sláma 4
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika, 1. LF UK a Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha 1;  Patologicko-anatomické oddělení, Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha 2;  Ústav radiační onkologie, Komplexní onkologické centrum, 1. LF UK a Nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha 3;  Onkogynekologické centrum, Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika Všeobecné fakultní nemocnice a 1. LF UK, Praha 4
Published in: Čes.-slov. Patol., 50, 2014, No. 2, p. 100-105
Category: Clinical point of view

Overview

Reliable staging system should facilitate prognosis assessment, decision on treatments, and evaluation of their outcomes. A good staging system must meet three basic characteristics: validity, reliability, and practicality. The purpose of such system is to offer classification of the extent and progress of gynaecological cancer that will allow the comparison of different treatment methods and the choice of optimal treatment for individual patients. The previously developed staging of gynaecological cancers has become outdated because it has not considered results of current medical research that allow refinement of prognostic subgroupings. Changes based on new findings were proposed for staging of uterine malignancies by the FIGO (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) Committee on Gynecologic Oncology and approved by the FIGO Executive Board in 2008, and were published in 2009. Stage 0 was deleted, since it did not represent any stage of invasive tumor. Four fundamental changes were made in the staging system of endometrium carcinoma. The revised staging system for endometrium carcinoma divides patients to groups with similar prognosis; carcinosarcoma is staged identically. The novel system will facilitate exchange of relevant information between diverse oncological centers and thereby promote knowledge dissemination and stimulate research around the globe. A different staging system was proposed for adenosarcomas, leiomyosarcomas and endometrial stromal sarcomas. It is based on features used for the sarcomas of other soft tissues. The purpose of the text is to review current knowledge in this area.

Keywords:
staging – endometroid carcinoma – uterine sarcoma – FIGO – TNM


Sources

1. Benedet JL, Pecorelli S. Why cancer staging? Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 95(Suppl l): 3.

2. Odicino F, Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Creasman WT. History of the FIGO cancer staging system. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008; 101(2): 205-210.

3. Pettersson F. Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. FIGO 1985; 19th volume.

4. Raspagliesi F, Hanozet F, Ditto A, et al. Clinical and pathologic prognostic factors in squamosus cell carcinoma of the vulva. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 102(2), 333-337.

5. Benedet JL. Indroduction. CME J Gynecol Oncol 2001; 6: 229.

6. www.figo.org

7. Pettersson F. Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. FIGO 1988; Twentieth volume.

8. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 103–104.

9. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM klasifikace zhoubných novotvarů (7.vyd). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011: 172-179.

10. Gospodarowicz MK, Miller D, Groome PA, Greene FL, Logan PA, Sobin LH. The proces for continuous improvement of the TMN classification. Cancer 2004; 100: 1-5.

11. Cibula D, Petruželka L. Onkogynekologie (1.vyd.). Praha: Grada; 2009: 489-494.

12. Systém pro vizualizaci onkologických dat. Institut biostatistiky a analýz Lékařské a Přírodovědecké fakulty Masarykovy univerzity (IBA MU). www.svod.cz

13. Dundr P. Prekancerózy endometria, děložní tuby a ovaria: přehled současné problematiky. Cesk Patol 2012; 48(1): 30–34.

14. Rob L, Robová H, Chmel R, Škapa P. Gynekologické prekancerózy z pohledu klinika dnes a zítra. Česk Patol 2012; 48(1): 9-14.

15. Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 105: 109.

16. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al. Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 40(1): 55–65.

17. Lurain JR, Rice BL, Rademaker AW, Poggensee LE, Schink JC, Miller DS. Prognostic factors associated with recurrence in clinical stage I adenocarcinoma. Obstetr Gynecol 1991; 78(1), 63–69.

18. Kitchener H, Redman CW, Swart AM, et al. A study in the treatment of endometrial cancer. A randomised trial of lymphadenectomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 101(Suppl 1): S21-S22.

19. Chan JK, Kapp DS. Role of complete lymphadenectomy in endometroid uterine cancer. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 831-841.

20. Todo Y, Kato H, Kaneuchi M, Watari H, Takeda M, Sakuragi N. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet 2010; 375(9721): 1165–1172.

21. Mariani A, Keeney GL, Aletti G, Webb MJ, Haddock GM, Podratz KC. Endometrial carcinoma: paraaortic dissemination.Gynecologic Oncology 2004; 92(3): 833–838.

22. Alhilli MM, Mariani A. The role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Inter J Clin Oncol 2013; 18(2): 193–199.

23. www.onkogynekologie.com

24. Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 246–266.

25. Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, et al. Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 560–566.

26. Weber G, Merz E, Bahlmann F, Mitze M, Weikel W, Knapstein PG. Assessment of myometrial infiltration and preoperative staging by transvaginal ultrasound in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 362–367.

27. Zámečník M. Mezenchymálne tumory adnex a tela maternice. Selektovaný prehľad. Cesk Patol 2007; 43(4): 121-134.

28. Giuntoli RL 2nd, Metzinger DS, DiMarco CS, et al. Retrospective review of 208 patients eith leiomyosarcoma of the uterus: prognostic indicators, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 89(3): 460-469.

29. Amant F, Coosemans A, Debiec-Rychter M, Timmerman D, Vergote I. Clinical management of uterine sarcomas. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10(12): 1188-1198.

30. Klačko M, Babala P, Mikloš P, et al. Sarkómy maternice – prehľad. Klin Onkol 2012; 25(5): 340-345.

31. Prat J. FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 104(3): 177-178.

32. Dundr P, Fischerova D, Povýšil C, Cibula D, Zikan M. Smišený myxoidní low grade endometriální stromální sarkom a hladkosvalový nádor dělohy. Popis případu. Cesk Patol 2012; 48(2): 103–106.

33. Koivisto-Korander R, Martisen JI, Weiderpass E, Leminen A, Pukkala E. Incidence of uterine leiomyosarcoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma in Nordic countries: results from NORDCAN and NOCCA databases. Maturitas 2012; 72(1): 56-60.

34. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, editors. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. IARC Press: Lyon: 2003.

35. Bell SW, Kempson RL, Hendricson MR. Problematic uterine smooth muscle neoplasms. A clinicopathologic study of 213 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18(6): 535-558.

36. Chen FC, David M, Richter R, Muallem MZ, Chekerov R, Sehouli J. Survey among German Gynecologists on the Clinical Management of Patients with Sarcomas of the Uterus. Anticancer Res 2013; 25(5): 546-552.

37. Reichardt P. The treatment of uterine sarcomas. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(Suppl 10): 151-157.

38. Kapp DS, Shin JY, Chan JK. Prognostic factor and survival in 1396 patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas: emphasis on impact of lymphadenectomy and oophorextony. Cancer 2008; 112(4): 820-830.

39. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Romanini A, Genazzani A. The management of patients with uterine sarcoma: a debated clinical challenge. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008; 65: 129–142.

40. Leitao M, Sonoda Y, Brennan M, et al. Incidence of lymph node and ovarian metastases in leiomyosarcoma of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 91: 209–212.

41. Kapp DS, Shin JY, Chan JK. Prognostic factors and survival in 1396 patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas: emphasis on impact of lymphadenectomy and oophorectomy. Cancer 2008; 112: 820–830.

42. Major FJ, Blessing JA, Silverberg SG, et al. Prognostic factors in early stage uterine sarcoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 1993; 71(Suppl 4): 1702-1709.

43. Rauh-Hain JA, Oduyebo T, Diver EJ, et al. Uterine leiomyosarcomas: an updated series. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23(6): 1036-1043.

44. Lusby K, Savannah KB, Demicco EG, et al. Uterine leiomyosarcoma management, outcome, and associated molecular biomarkers: a single institution‘s experience. Am Surg Oncol 2013; 20(7): 2364-2372.

45. Wong P, Han K, Sykes J, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy improves local control and survival in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma. Radiat Oncol 2013; 24(8): 128.

46. Hensley ML, Wathen JK, Maki RG, et al. Adjuvant therapy for high-grade, uterus-limited leiomyosarcoma: results of a phase 2 trial (SARC 005). Cancer 2013; 118(8): 1555-1561

47. Giuntoli RL 2nd, Lessard-Anderson CR, Gerardi MA, et al. Comparison of current staging systems and a novel staging system for uterine leiomyosarcoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013; 23(5): 869-876.

48. Koivisto-Korander R, Leminen A, Heikinheimo O. Mifepristone as treatment of recurrent progesterone receptor-positive uterine leiomyosarcoma. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 512–514.

49. Chang KL, Crabtree GS, Lim-Tan SK, Kempson RL, Hendricson MR. Primary uterine endometrial stromal neoplasms. A clinicalpathologic study of 117 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1990; 14(5): 415-438.

50. Kurman RJ. Blaustein´s Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (5th edn.) New York: Springer Verlag; 2002: 1391.

51. Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. The role of pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in surgical management of apparently early carcinosarcoma of uterus. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17(3): 861-868.

52. Vorgias G, Fotiou S. The role of lymphadenectomy in uterine carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed mullerian tumours): a critical literature review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 282(6): 659-664.

53. Clement PB, Scully RE. Mullerian adenosarcoma of the uterus: a clinicopathologic analysis of 100 cases with a review of the literature. Hum Pathol 1990; 21(4): 363-381.

54. Gallardo A, Prat J. Mullerian adenosarcoma of the uterus: A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 55 cases challenging the existence of adenofibroma. Am J Surg Pathol 2009; 33(2): 278-288.

55. Koivisto-Korander R, Butzow R, Koivisto AM, Leminen A. Clinical outcome and prognostic factors in 100 cases of uterine sarcomas: experience in Helsinki University Central Hospital 1990-2001. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111(1): 74-81.

56. Dafapoulos A, Tsikouras P, Dimitraki M, et al. The role of lymphadenectomy in uterine leiomyosarcoma: review of the literature and recommendations for the standard surgical procedure. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 282(3): 293-300.

57. Lim D, Wang WL, Lee CH, Dodge T, Gilks B, Oliva E. Old versus new FIGO staging systems in predicting overall survival in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma: a study of 86 cases. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128(2): 322-326.

58. Mackillop WJ, O’Sullivan B, Gospodarowicz M. The role of cancer staging in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Prev Control 1998; 2(6): 269-277.

Labels
Anatomical pathology Forensic medical examiner Toxicology
Login
Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#