Preoperative predictors of endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or complex atypical hyperplasia.


Journal

American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1097-6868
Titre abrégé: Am J Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370476

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2020
Historique:
received: 19 03 2019
revised: 05 07 2019
accepted: 03 08 2019
pubmed: 12 8 2019
medline: 21 4 2020
entrez: 12 8 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, also known as complex atypical hyperplasia, is a precancerous lesion of the endometrium associated with a 40% risk of concurrent endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy. Although a majority of endometrial cancers diagnosed at the time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia are low risk and low stage, approximately 10% of patients ultimately diagnosed with endometrial cancers will have high-risk disease that would warrant lymph node assessment to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. Given these risks, some physicians choose to refer patients to a gynecologic oncologist for definitive management. Currently, few data exist regarding preoperative factors that can predict the presence of concurrent endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Identification of these factors may assist in the preoperative triaging of patients to general gynecology or gynecologic oncology. To determine whether preoperative factors can predict the presence of concurrent endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia; and to describe the ability of preoperative characteristics to predict which patients may be at a higher risk for lymph node involvement requiring lymph node assessment at the time of hysterectomy. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing hysterectomy for pathologically confirmed endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia from January 2004 to December 2015. Patient demographics, imaging, pathology, and outcomes were recorded. The "Mayo criteria" were used to determine patients requiring lymphadenectomy. Unadjusted associations between covariates and progression to endometrial cancer were estimated by 2-sample t-tests for continuous covariates and by logistic regression for categorical covariates. A multivariable model for endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy was developed using logistic regression with 5-fold cross-validation. Of the 1055 charts reviewed, 169 patients were eligible and included. Of these patients, 87 (51.5%) had a final diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/other benign disease, whereas 82 (48.5%) were ultimately diagnosed with endometrial cancer. No medical comorbidities were found to be strongly associated with concurrent endometrial cancer. Patients with endometrial cancer had a thicker average endometrial stripe compared to the patients with no endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy (15.7 mm; standard deviation, 9.5) versus 12.5 mm; standard deviation, 6.4; P = .01). An endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm was associated with 4.0 times the odds of concurrent endometrial cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.5-10.0), controlling for age. In all, 87% of endometrial cancer cases were stage T1a (Nx or N0). Approximately 44% of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer and an endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm met the "Mayo criteria" for indicated lymphadenectomy compared to 22% of endometrial cancer patients with an endometrial stripe of <2 cm. Endometrial stripe thickness and age were the strongest predictors of concurrent endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Referral to a gynecologic oncologist may be especially warranted in endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia patients with an endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm given the increased rate of concurrent cancer and potential need for lymph node assessment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, also known as complex atypical hyperplasia, is a precancerous lesion of the endometrium associated with a 40% risk of concurrent endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy. Although a majority of endometrial cancers diagnosed at the time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia are low risk and low stage, approximately 10% of patients ultimately diagnosed with endometrial cancers will have high-risk disease that would warrant lymph node assessment to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. Given these risks, some physicians choose to refer patients to a gynecologic oncologist for definitive management. Currently, few data exist regarding preoperative factors that can predict the presence of concurrent endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Identification of these factors may assist in the preoperative triaging of patients to general gynecology or gynecologic oncology.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether preoperative factors can predict the presence of concurrent endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia; and to describe the ability of preoperative characteristics to predict which patients may be at a higher risk for lymph node involvement requiring lymph node assessment at the time of hysterectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing hysterectomy for pathologically confirmed endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia from January 2004 to December 2015. Patient demographics, imaging, pathology, and outcomes were recorded. The "Mayo criteria" were used to determine patients requiring lymphadenectomy. Unadjusted associations between covariates and progression to endometrial cancer were estimated by 2-sample t-tests for continuous covariates and by logistic regression for categorical covariates. A multivariable model for endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy was developed using logistic regression with 5-fold cross-validation.
RESULTS
Of the 1055 charts reviewed, 169 patients were eligible and included. Of these patients, 87 (51.5%) had a final diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia/other benign disease, whereas 82 (48.5%) were ultimately diagnosed with endometrial cancer. No medical comorbidities were found to be strongly associated with concurrent endometrial cancer. Patients with endometrial cancer had a thicker average endometrial stripe compared to the patients with no endometrial cancer at the time of hysterectomy (15.7 mm; standard deviation, 9.5) versus 12.5 mm; standard deviation, 6.4; P = .01). An endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm was associated with 4.0 times the odds of concurrent endometrial cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.5-10.0), controlling for age. In all, 87% of endometrial cancer cases were stage T1a (Nx or N0). Approximately 44% of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer and an endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm met the "Mayo criteria" for indicated lymphadenectomy compared to 22% of endometrial cancer patients with an endometrial stripe of <2 cm.
CONCLUSION
Endometrial stripe thickness and age were the strongest predictors of concurrent endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Referral to a gynecologic oncologist may be especially warranted in endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia patients with an endometrial stripe of ≥2 cm given the increased rate of concurrent cancer and potential need for lymph node assessment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31401259
pii: S0002-9378(19)31000-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.002
pmc: PMC7201377
mid: NIHMS1542356
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

60.e1-60.e7

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016058
Pays : United States

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Jan-Feb;15(1):127-31
pubmed: 15670307
Lancet. 2010 Mar 6;375(9717):816-23
pubmed: 20206777
Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Apr;41(1):1-16
pubmed: 2026352
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 May;133(2):274-7
pubmed: 24582865
Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;106(4):812-9
pubmed: 16400639
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jun;125(3):531-5
pubmed: 22366409
Gynecol Oncol. 2000 Mar;76(3):287-90
pubmed: 10684697
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Sep;138(3):542-7
pubmed: 26095896
Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8
pubmed: 18304622
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 1;24(1):36-44
pubmed: 16330675
Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41
pubmed: 3652025
Mod Pathol. 2000 Mar;13(3):295-308
pubmed: 10757340
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):38-43
pubmed: 24120926
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Mar;19(3):295-309
pubmed: 29449189
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(5):400-2
pubmed: 17966221
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD007585
pubmed: 20091639
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;114(3):523-9
pubmed: 19701030
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Feb;164(2):522-7
pubmed: 1992695
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):451-4
pubmed: 25316176
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Aug;146(2):405-415
pubmed: 28566221
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Mar;148(3):485-490
pubmed: 29290489
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203(4):349.e1-6
pubmed: 20576254
Cancer. 1982 Jun 15;49(12):2547-59
pubmed: 7074572
BJOG. 2002 Mar;109(3):313-21
pubmed: 11950187
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;202(2):176.e1-4
pubmed: 20022313
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):1160-75
pubmed: 23090535
Cancer. 2005 Jun 1;103(11):2304-12
pubmed: 15856484

Auteurs

Monica Hagan Vetter (MH)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Blair Smith (B)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO.

Jason Benedict (J)

Center for Biostatistics, Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Erinn M Hade (EM)

Center for Biostatistics, Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Kristin Bixel (K)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Larry J Copeland (LJ)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

David E Cohn (DE)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Jeffrey M Fowler (JM)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

David O'Malley (D)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Ritu Salani (R)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.

Floor J Backes (FJ)

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH. Electronic address: Floor.backes@osumc.edu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH