Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Role of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer
  1. Giorgio Bogani1,
  2. Serena Cappuccio2,
  3. Jvan Casarin3,
  4. Deepa Maheswari M Narasimhulu4,
  5. William A Cliby4,
  6. Gretchen E Glaser4,
  7. Amy L Weaver5,
  8. Michaela E McGree5,
  9. Gary L Keeney6,
  10. John Weroha7,
  11. Ivy A Petersen8 and
  12. Andrea Mariani4
  1. 1Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy
  2. 2Department of Woman's, Child's and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  3. 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Filippo Del Ponte” Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
  4. 4Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  5. 5Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  6. 6Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  7. 7Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  8. 8Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andrea Mariani, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester MN 55905, Minnesota, USA; mariani.andrea{at}


Objective The role of the different types of adjuvant treatments in endometrial cancer with para-aortic node metastases is unclear. The aim of this study was to report oncologic outcomes after adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer.

Methods This retrospective single-institution study assessed patients with stage IIIC2 endometrial cancer who underwent primary surgery from January 1984 to December 2014. All patients had hysterectomy (±salpingo-oophorectomy) plus lymphadenectomy (para-aortic nodes, ±pelvic nodes). We included all patients with stage III endometrial cancer and documented para-aortic lymph node metastases (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecologists stage IIIC2). We excluded patients who did not provide consent, who had synchronous cancer, or who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Follow-up was restricted to the first 5 years post-operatively. Cox proportional hazards models, with age as the time scale, was used to evaluate associations of risk factors with disease-free survival and overall survival.

Results Among 105 patients with documented adjuvant therapy, external beam radiotherapy was administered to 25 patients (24%), chemotherapy to 24 (23%), and a combination (chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy) to 56 (53%) patients. Most patients receiving chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy (80%) had chemotherapy first. The majority of relapses had a distant component (31/46, 67%) and only one patient had an isolated para-aortic recurrence. Non-endometrioid subtypes had poorer disease-free survival (HR 2.57; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.78) and poorer overall survival (HR 2.00; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.65) compared with endometrioid. Among patients with endometrioid histology (n=60), chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy improved disease-free survival (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71) and overall survival (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.89) compared with chemotherapy or external beam radiotherapy alone. Combination therapy did not improve prognosis for patients with non-endometrioid histology (n=45).

Conclusions In our cohort of patients with stage IIIC2 endometrioid endometrial cancer, those receiving chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy had improved survival compared with patients receiving chemotherapy or external beam radiotherapy alone. However, the prognosis of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer remained poor, regardless of the adjuvant therapy administered. Distant recurrences were the most common sites of failure.

  • radiotherapy

Statistics from

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.


  • GB and SC contributed equally.

  • Presented at Presented in part as a poster at the 45th Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, Tampa, Florida, March 22-25, 2014.

  • Correction notice Author name 'William A Cilby' has been corrected to 'William A Cliby'.

  • Contributors Conceptualization: AM, GB. Methodology: All authors. Statistical analysis: MEM, ALW. Project administration: AM. Supervision: AM, ALW, WAC. Writing, original draft: GB, SC, JC, ALW, AM. Writing, review, and editing: All authors.

  • 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 availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.