Prognostic performance of FIGO 2023 endometrial carcinoma staging: a comparison to FIGO 2009 staging in the setting of known and unknown molecular classification.
FIGO
cancer staging
endometrial cancer
endometrial cancer molecular staging
endometrial carcinoma stage
Journal
Histopathology
ISSN: 1365-2559
Titre abrégé: Histopathology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7704136
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Aug 2024
29 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
31
07
2024
received:
12
06
2024
accepted:
01
08
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The 2023 FIGO staging criteria for endometrial cancer (EC) introduced marked changes from the 2009 version. The full implication of these changes for patient diagnosis and treatment is unknown. We evaluate the differences in staging and prognostication between the two systems, with and without inclusion of molecular classification. We assigned (1) FIGO 2009, (2) 2023 molecular-agnostic and (3) 2023 molecular-informed stages to 404 fully staged and molecularly classified patients with EC. Disease-specific and progression/relapse-free survival were analysed via the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank testing; 118 of 252 (47%) FIGO 2009 stage I patients were upstaged based on histopathological findings alone. Stage I/II subgroup survival distribution analysis showed a worse prognosis in FIGO 2023 IIB and IIC patients. In the molecular-informed FIGO 2023 system, three of 15 (20%) POLE-mutated stage I/II cases were downstaged from FIGO 2009 and eight (53%) were downstaged from molecular-agnostic FIGO 2023. Fifty-one of 60 (85%) p53-abnormal tumours were upstaged from the FIGO 2009, whereas 13 of 60 (22%) were upstaged from the 2023 molecular-agnostic stage. Molecular classification improved prognostic stratification for both 2009 and 2023 FIGO systems. Downstaging based on POLE mutation more accurately represents patient outcomes. However, in the absence of known POLE status, applying molecular-agnostic FIGO 2023 criteria for stage I/II disease should be conducted with caution. For aggressive histotypes, additionally reporting FIGO 2009 stage should be considered. Upstaging based on substantial lymphovascular space invasion, aggressive histotype with any myometrial invasion and abnormal p53 improves prognostic discernment. Further subdivisions within stage I/II provide minimal additional prognostic information.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Berek JS, Matias‐Guiu X, Creutzberg C et al. FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2023; 162; 383–394.
Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2009; 105; 103–104.
McCluggage WG, Bosse T, Gilks CB et al. FIGO 2023 endometrial cancer staging: too much, too soon? Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2023; 34; 138–143.
Boennelycke M, Peters EEM, Léon‐Castillo A et al. Prognostic impact of histological review of high‐grade endometrial carcinomas in a large Danish cohort. Virchows Arch. 2021; 479; 507–514.
Abeler VM, Kjørstad KE, Berle E. Carcinoma of the endometrium in Norway: a histopathological and prognostic survey of a total population. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 1992; 2; 9–22.
Levine DA, The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013; 497; 67–73.
Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S et al. A clinically applicable molecular‐based classification for endometrial cancers. Br. J. Cancer 2015; 113; 299–310.
Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM et al. Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early‐stage endometrial cancer‐combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016; 22; 4215–4224.
Stelloo E, Bosse T, Nout RA et al. Refining prognosis and identifying targetable pathways for high‐risk endometrial cancer; a TransPORTEC initiative. Mod. Pathol. 2015; 28; 836–844.
McConechy MK, Talhouk A, Leung S et al. Endometrial carcinomas with POLE exonuclease domain mutations have a favorable prognosis. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016; 22; 2865–2873.
Concin N, Matias‐Guiu X, Vergote I et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2021; 31; 12–39.
Oaknin A, Bosse TJ, Creutzberg CL et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann. Oncol. 2022; 33; 860–877.
Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population‐based to a more ‘personalized’ approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2017; 67; 93–99.
Anglesio MS, Wang YK, Maassen M et al. Synchronous endometrial and ovarian carcinomas: evidence of clonality. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016; 108; djv428.
Devereaux KA, Weiel JJ, Pors J et al. Prospective molecular classification of endometrial carcinomas: institutional implementation, practice, and clinical experience. Mod. Pathol. 2022; 35; 688–696.
Hui C, Mendoza MG, Snyder J et al. Adjuvant radiation therapy in early‐stage endometrial cancer with abnormal beta‐catenin expression is associated with improved local control. Gynecol. Oncol. 2023; 174; 42–48.
Hui C, Mendoza MG, von Eyben R et al. Does lymph node assessment change the prognostic significance of substantial LVSI and p53 status in endometrial endometrioid carcinoma? Gynecol. Oncol. 2023; 177; 150–156.
Hammer PM, Wang A, Vermij L et al. Molecular classification outperforms histologic classification in prognostication of high‐grade endometrial carcinomas with undifferentiated and sarcomatous components. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2020; 48(8); 953–964.
Female genital tumours: WHO classification of tumours. Lyon: World Health Organization, 2020.
Raffone A, Travaglino A, Cerbone M et al. Diagnostic accuracy of immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins as surrogate of microsatellite instability molecular testing in endometrial cancer. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2020; 26; 1417–1427.
Raffone A, Travaglino A, Cerbone M et al. Diagnostic accuracy of p53 immunohistochemistry as surrogate of TP53 sequencing in endometrial cancer. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2020; 216; 153025.
Schwameis R, Fanfani F, Ebner C et al. Verification of the prognostic precision of the new 2023 FIGO staging system in endometrial cancer patients ‐ An international pooled analysis of three ESGO accredited centres. Eur. J. Cancer 2023; 193; 113317.
Matsuo K, Klar M, Song BB, Roman LD, Wright JD. Validation of the 2023 FIGO staging schema for advanced endometrial cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2023; 193; 113316.
Kobayashi‐Kato M, Fujii E, Asami Y et al. Utility of the revised FIGO2023 staging with molecular classification in endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2023; 178; 36–43.
Haight PJ, Riedinger CJ, Backes FJ, O'Malley DM, Cosgrove CM. The right time for change: a report on the heterogeneity of IVB endometrial cancer and improved risk‐stratification provided by new 2023 FIGO staging criteria. Gynecol. Oncol. 2023; 175; 32–40.
Schilling JM, Shaker N, Shaker N, Fadare O. The 2023 FIGO staging system for endometrial carcinoma: predicted impact on stage distribution based on a retrospective analysis of 1169 cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2024; 48; 123–126.
Barnes EA, Martell K, Parra‐Herran C, Taggar AS, Donovan E, Leung E. Substantial lymphovascular space invasion predicts worse outcomes in early‐stage endometrioid endometrial cancer. Brachytherapy 2021; 20; 527–535.
Tortorella L, Restaino S, Zannoni GF et al. Substantial lymph‐vascular space invasion (LVSI) as predictor of distant relapse and poor prognosis in low‐risk early‐stage endometrial cancer. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2021; 32; e11.
Veade AE, Foote J, Ehrisman J et al. Associations between lymphovascular space invasion, nodal recurrence, and survival in patients with surgical stage I endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2019; 17; 80.
dos Reis R, Burzawa JK, Tsunoda AT et al. Lymphovascular space invasion portends poor prognosis in low‐risk endometrial cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2015; 25; 1292–1299.
Clement PB, Young RH. Non‐endometrioid carcinomas of the uterine corpus: a review of their pathology with emphasis on recent advances and problematic aspects. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2004; 11; 117–142.
Creasman WT, Kohler MF, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Boyle P. Prognosis of papillary serous, clear cell, and grade 3 stage I carcinoma of the endometrium. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004; 95; 593–596.
Barlin JN, Soslow RA, Lutz M et al. Redefining stage I endometrial cancer: incorporating histology, a binary grading system, myometrial invasion, and lymph node assessment. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2013; 23; 1620–1628.
Haltia U‐M, Bützow R, Leminen A, Loukovaara M. FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014; 25; 30–35.
Soslow RA. Practical issues related to uterine pathology: staging, frozen section, artifacts, and Lynch syndrome. Mod. Pathol. 2016; 29; S59–S77.
Yoneoka Y, Amano T, Tsuji S et al. The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy on the survival of early stage endometrial cancer. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2023; 287; 155–160.
Fu P, Sun H, Zhou T, Cui P, Wang S, Liu R. Postoperative adjuvant treatment in women with stage I endometrial cancer: a retrospective study. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2023; 2023; 4007616.
Horeweg N, Nout RA, Jürgenliemk‐Schulz IM et al. Molecular classification predicts response to radiotherapy in the randomized PORTEC‐1 and PORTEC‐2 trials for early‐stage endometrioid endometrial cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023; 41; 4369–4380.