Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Association Between Adjuvant Therapy and Survival in Stage II–III Endometrial Cancer: Influence of Malignant Peritoneal Cytology

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the survival effect of adjuvant therapy in stage II–III endometrial cancer based on peritoneal cytology results.

Methods

The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program was retrospectively queried to examine 7467 women with stage II–III endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy, and with available peritoneal cytology results, from 2010 to 2016. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted to assess the association between adjuvant therapy and all-cause mortality stratified by peritoneal cytology results.

Results

Malignant peritoneal cytology was reported in 1662 (22.3%) women and was associated with non-endometrioid histology, higher tumor stage, and nodal metastasis (p < 0.05). In a propensity score-weighted model, malignant peritoneal cytology was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with negative peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.23–1.48). Adjuvant therapy types varied based on histology and peritoneal cytology results. In non-endometrioid histology, the combination of chemotherapy and whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) was associated with improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy or WPRT alone irrespective of the peritoneal cytology results (p < 0.05). The combination of chemotherapy and WPRT was also associated with improved overall survival in women with endometrioid histology and malignant peritoneal cytology (p = 0.026). Women with endometrioid histology and negative peritoneal cytology represented the most common subpopulation (46.5%), and overall survival was similar regardless of which of the three adjuvant therapy modalities was used (p = 0.319).

Conclusions

Malignant peritoneal cytology is prevalent and prognostic in stage II–III endometrial cancer. This study found that the surgeon’s choice and benefit of adjuvant therapy for women with stage II–III endometrial cancer differed depending on the status of peritoneal cytology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program (http://seer.cancer.gov/).

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wright JD, Barrena Medel NI, Sehouli J, Fujiwara K, Herzog TJ. Contemporary management of endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1352–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2016;387(10023):1094–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Uterine. Neoplasms. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  5. Yamagami W, Mikami M, Nagase S, et al. Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology 2018 guidelines for treatment of uterine body neoplasms. J Gynecol Oncol. 2020;31(1):e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(1):16–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Matsuo K, Matsuzaki S, Nusbaum DJ, et al. Malignant peritoneal cytology and decreased survival of women with stage I endometrioid endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2020;133:33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matsuo K, Yabuno A, Hom MS, et al. Significance of abnormal peritoneal cytology on survival of women with stage I–II endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149(2):301–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tate K, Yoshida H, Ishikawa M, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with early-stage uterine serous carcinoma without adjuvant therapy. J Gynecol Oncol. 2018;29(3):e34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Seagle BL, Alexander AL, Lantsman T, Shahabi S. Prognosis and treatment of positive peritoneal cytology in early endometrial cancer: matched cohort analyses from the National Cancer Database. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):329.e321-329.e315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haltia UM, 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(1):30–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garg G, Gao F, Wright JD, Hagemann AR, Mutch DG, Powell MA. Positive peritoneal cytology is an independent risk-factor in early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bansal S, Buck AM, Herzog TJ, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Wright JD. Stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma: outcome and predictors of survival. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):100–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, Calingaert B, et al. The prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology and adnexal/serosal metastasis in stage IIIA endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104(2):401–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Saga Y, Imai M, Jobo T, et al. Is peritoneal cytology a prognostic factor of endometrial cancer confined to the uterus? Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(1):277–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsuo K, Nusbaum DJ, Matsuzaki S, et al. Malignant peritoneal cytology and increased mortality risk in stage I non-endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(1):43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahramanoglu I, Meydanli MM, Taranenka S, et al. SATEN III-splitting adjuvant treatment of stage III ENdometrial cancers: an international, multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(8):1271–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Milgrom SA, Kollmeier MA, Abu-Rustum NR, O’Cearbhaill RE, Barakat RR, Alektiar KM. Quantifying the risk of recurrence and death in stage III (FIGO 2009) endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134(2):297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuku S, Williams M, McCormack M. Adjuvant therapy in stage III endometrial cancer: treatment outcomes and survival. A single-institution retrospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23(6):1056–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. http://seer.cancer.gov/. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  21. Zippin C, Lum D, Hankey BF. Completeness of hospital cancer case reporting from the SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer. 1995;76(11):2343–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. National Cancer Registrars Association. http://www.ncra-usa.org/. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  23. CorpusCarcinoma. CS Site-Specific Factor 2 Peritoneal Cytology. http://web2.facs.org/cstage0205/corpuscarcinoma/CorpusCarcinoma_kpo.html. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  24. Jamison PM, Altekruse SF, Chang JT, et al. Site-specific factors for cancer of the corpus uteri from SEER registries: collaborative stage data collection system, version 1 and version 2. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 23):3836–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3). World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/adaptations/oncology/en/. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  26. American. Joint Committee on Cancer. https://cancerstaging.org/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 23 Jul 2020.

  27. Whitney CW, Spirtos N. Gynecologic Oncology Group surgical procedures manual. Philadelphia, PA: Gynecologic Oncology Group; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pinto D, Chandra A, Crothers BA, Kurtycz DFI, Schmitt F. The international system for reporting serous fluid cytopathology-diagnostic categories and clinical management. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020;9(6):469–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pavlou M, Ambler G, Seaman S, De Iorio M, Omar RZ. Review and evaluation of penalised regression methods for risk prediction in low-dimensional data with few events. Stat Med. 2016;35(7):1159–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. National. Cancer Institute. Joinpoint trend analysis software. https://surveillance.cancer.gov/joinpoint/. Accessed 19 Jul 2020.

  33. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mayo-de-Las-Casas C, Velasco A, Sanchez D, et al. Detection of somatic mutations in peritoneal lavages and plasma of endometrial cancer patients: a proof-of-concept study. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(1):277–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chang YN, Zhang Y, Wang YJ, Wang LP, Duan H. Effect of hysteroscopy on the peritoneal dissemination of endometrial cancer cells: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):957–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Padilla-Iserte P, Lago V, Tauste C, et al. Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(1):65 e61-65 e11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. de Boer SM, Powell ME, Mileshkin L, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): patterns of recurrence and post-hoc survival analysis of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(9):1273–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Matei D, Filiaci V, Randall ME, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation for locally advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(24):2317–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. van Weelden WJ, Reijnen C, Eggink FA, et al. Impact of different adjuvant treatment approaches on survival in stage III endometrial cancer: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;133:104–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Syeda S, Chen L, Hou JY, et al. Chemotherapy, radiation, or combination therapy for stage III uterine cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(1):17–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Felix AS, Brinton LA, McMeekin DS, et al. Relationships of tubal ligation to endometrial carcinoma stage and mortality in the NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group 210 Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(9):djv158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. de Boer SM, Wortman BG, Bosse T, et al. Clinical consequences of upfront pathology review in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2):424–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wright JD, Cham S, Chen L, et al. Utilization of sentinel lymph node biopsy for uterine cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(6):594 e591-594 e513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Matsuo K, Matsuzaki S, Roman LD, Klar M, Wright JD. Proposal of an endometrial cancer staging schema with stage-specific incorporation of malignant peritoneal cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(3):319–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Koji Matsuo has received funding support from Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Koji Matsuo MD, PhD, Shinya Matsuzaki MD, PhD & Lynda D. Roman MD

  2. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Koji Matsuo MD, PhD & Lynda D. Roman MD

  3. Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    David J. Nusbaum MD, PhD

  4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

    Jason D. Wright MD

  5. Department of Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany

    Philipp Harter MD, PhD

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Maximilian Klar MD, MPH

Authors
  1. Koji Matsuo MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shinya Matsuzaki MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Nusbaum MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lynda D. Roman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason D. Wright MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philipp Harter MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maximilian Klar MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Koji Matsuo designed the study, initiated the collaborations, cleaned and analyzed the data, created the figures and tables, interpreted the results, and drafted and revised the manuscript with others. He is also the corresponding author of this study. David J. Nusbaum contributed to the analysis, interpreted the results, and revised the manuscript. Shinya Matsuzaki contributed to the literature overview and intellectual inputs, interpreted the results, and edited the manuscript. Lynda D. Roman and Jason D. Wright supervised the study and revised the manuscript. Philipp Harter reviewed the results and revised the manuscript. Maximilian Klar contributed to the study concept and design, instructed the analytic approach, interpreted the results, and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Matsuo MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The following disclosures are declared, outside the submitted work: Jason D. Wright is a consultant for Clovis Oncology and has undertaken research funding for Merck. Lynda D. Roman is a consultant for Quantgene. Koji Matsuo has received honorarium from Chugai, textbook editorial expenses from Springer, and investigator meeting attendance expenses from VBL therapeutics. Shinya Matsuzaki has received research funding from MSD. Philipp Harter has received personal fees, non-financial support, honoraria for lectures, advisory board fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca and Roche; non-financial support and travel support from Medac; personal fees, honoraria for lectures, and advisory board fees from Tesaro and PharmaMar; personal fees and honoraria for advisory board participation from Clovis and Lilly; personal fees and honoraria for lectures from Stryker; and personal fees and honoraria for advisory board participation from Immunogen. Maximilian Klar has received advisory board fees from Tesaro and GSK. David J. Nusbaum has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 229 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsuo, K., Matsuzaki, S., Nusbaum, D.J. et al. Association Between Adjuvant Therapy and Survival in Stage II–III Endometrial Cancer: Influence of Malignant Peritoneal Cytology. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 7591–7603 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09900-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09900-4

Search

Navigation