You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Original Article
A proposal for a new classification of “unfavorable risk criteria” in patients with stage I endometrial cancer
Free
  1. Richard Li1,
  2. Ashwin Shinde1,
  3. Ernest Han2,
  4. Stephen Lee2,
  5. Sushil Beriwal3,
  6. Matthew Harkenrider4,
  7. Mitchell Kamrava5,
  8. Yi-Jen Chen1 and
  9. Scott Glaser1
  1. 1 Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, California, USA
  2. 2 Gynecologic Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, California, USA
  3. 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4 Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine; Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA
  5. 5 Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Scott Glaser, Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA; sglaser{at}coh.org

Abstract

Background Randomized trials describe differing sets of high–intermediate risk criteria.

Objective To use the National Cancer Database to compare the impact of radiation therapy in patients with stage I endometrial cancer meeting different criteria, and define a classification of “unfavorable risk.”

Methods Patients with stage I endometrial cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 were identified in the National Cancer Database and stratified into two cohorts: (1) patients meeting Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG)-99 criteria only for high–intermediate risk, but not Post-Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-1 criteria and (2) those meeting PORTEC-1 criteria only. High-risk stage I patients with both FIGO stage IB (under FIGO 2009 staging) and grade 3 disease were excluded. In each cohort, propensity score-matched survival analyses were performed. Based on these analyses, we propose a new classification of unfavorable risk. We then analyzed the association of adjuvant radiation with survival, stratified by this classification.

Results We identified 117,272 patients with stage I endometrial cancer. Of these, 11,207 patients met GOG-99 criteria only and 5,920 patients met PORTEC-1 criteria only. After propensity score matching, adjuvant radiation therapy improved survival (HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; p=0.002) in the GOG-99 only cohort. However, there was no benefit of adjuvant radiation (HR=0.89; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.14; p=0.355) in the PORTEC-1 only cohort. We, therefore, defined unfavorable risk stage I endometrial cancer as two or more of the following risk factors: lymphovascular invasion, age ≥70, grade 2–3 disease, and FIGO stage IB. Adjuvant radiation improved survival in stage I patients with adverse risk factors (HR=0.74; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80; p<0.001), but not in other stage I patients (HR=1.02; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; p=0.710; p interaction <0.001).

Conclusion Our study showed that adjuvant radiation was associated with an overall survival benefit in patients meeting GOG-99 criteria only; however, no survival benefit was seen in patients meeting PORTEC-1 criteria only. We propose a definition of unfavorable risk stage I endometrial cancer: ≥2 risk factors from among lymphovascular invasion, age ≥70, grade 2–3 disease, and FIGO stage IB disease.

  • endometrial neoplasms
  • radiation oncology

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-000264

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Lay summary

      Disclaimer : This is a summary of a scientific article written by a medical professional (“the Original Article”). The Summary is written to assist non medically trained readers to understand general points of the Original Article. It is supplied “as is” without any warranty. You should note that the Original Article (and Summary) may not be fully relevant nor accurate as medical science is constantly changing and errors can occur. It is therefore very important that readers not rely on the content in the Summary and consult their medical professionals for all aspects of their health care and only rely on the Summary if directed to do so by their medical professional. Please view our full Website Terms and Conditions. http://www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/
      Copyright © IGCS and ESGO 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Medical professionals may print copies for their and their patients and students non commercial use. Other individuals may print a single copy for their personal, non commercial use. For other uses please contact our Rights and Licensing Team.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RL and SG conceived the original concept of the manuscript and designed the initial analysis. RL, SG, AS, EH, SL, SB, MH, MK, and Y-JC contributed to the analysis and writing of the paper.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Data are available upon reasonable request.

    Linked Articles