4.6 Article

Pattern of recurrence in patients with endometrial cancer: A retrospective study

Journal

EJSO
Volume 46, Issue 9, Pages 1697-1702

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.203

Keywords

Endometrial cancer; Pattern of recurrence; ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk Classes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Endometrial cancer (EC) known prognostic factors are not sufficient to predict either outcome or recurrence rate/site: to investigate EC recurrence patterns according to ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classes, could be beneficial for a more tailored adjuvant treatment and follow-up schedule. Methods: 758 women diagnosed with EC, and a 5-years follow-up, were enrolled: they were divided into the ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO risk classes (low LR, intermediate IR, intermediate-high I-HR, and highrisk HR) and surgically treated as recommended, followed by adjuvants therapies when appropriate. Results: Higher recurrence rate (RR) was significantly detected (p < 0,001) in the HR group (40,3%) compared to LR (9,6%), IR (16,7%) and I-HR (17,1%). Recurrences were detected more frequently at distant sites (64%) compared to pelvic (25,3%) and lymph nodes (10,7%) recurrences (p < 0,0001): only in LR group, no differences were detected between local and distant recurrences. 5-Year distant-free (LR 99%, IR 94%,I-HR 86%, HR 88%) and local-free survivals (LR 99%, IR 100%,I-HR 98%, HR 95%) significantly differ between groups (p < 0,0001 and p = 0,003, respectively). Adjuvant therapy modifies RRs only in LR group (p = 0,01). Conclusion: To identify biological factors to stratify patients at higher risk of relapse is needed. Distant site relapse could be the main reason of endometrial cancer failure follow-up, independently or in addition to their risk class prognosis. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO - The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available