Display options
Cite
Haltia UM, Bützow R, Leminen A, et al. 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):30-5doi: 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30.
Haltia, U. M., Bützow, R., Leminen, A., & Loukovaara, M. (2014). FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype. Journal of gynecologic oncology, 25(1), 30-5. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30
Haltia, Ulla-Maija, et al. "FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype." Journal of gynecologic oncology vol. 25,1 (2014): 30-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30
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 Jan;25(1):30-5. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30. Epub 2014 Jan 08. PMID: 24459578; PMCID: PMC3893672.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;25(1):30-5. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30. Epub 2014 Jan 08.

FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype.

Journal of gynecologic oncology

Ulla-Maija Haltia, Ralf Bützow, Arto Leminen, Mikko Loukovaara

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
  2. Department of Pathology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

PMID: 24459578 PMCID: PMC3893672 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The surgical staging system for endometrial carcinoma developed by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in 1988 was revised in 2009. Given the importance of continuous validation of the prognostic performance of staging systems, we analyzed the disease specific survival for patients with endometrial carcinoma using FIGO 1988 and 2009 systems. Further, the stage distribution of endometrioid and nonendometrioid carcinomas was studied.

METHODS: Eight hundred twenty-one women with endometrial carcinoma were retrospectively staged using FIGO 1988 and 2009 systems.

RESULTS: FIGO 1988 IC was associated with an inferior survival compared with IA-IB. Survival overlapped for 1988 IA and IB, for 1988 IC and IIA, and for 2009 IB and II. FIGO 2009 IA-II patients with negative peritoneal cytology had a superior survival compared with 1988 IIIA patients with positive cytology only. The survival was similar for 1988 IIIA with positive cytology only and for 2009 IIIA. Cox proportional hazards model recognized grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid histology, tumor spread beyond the uterine corpus and cervix, and positive peritoneal cytology as significant predictors of death. Among 2009 IIIC substages, the proportion of IIIC2 tumors was higher for nonendometrioid than for endometrioid carcinomas (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION: Stage I with deep myometrial invasion and stage II endometrial carcinoma seem to have similar survival outcomes. Although positive peritoneal cytology does not alter the stage according to the FIGO 2009 system, it should be considered a poor prognostic sign. The high proportion of nonendometrioid carcinomas in the stage IIIC2 category may reflect different patterns of retroperitoneal spread among tumors with different histologic subtypes.

Keywords: Disease specific survival; Endometrial carcinoma; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; Tumor staging

References

  1. Br J Cancer. 2006 Mar 13;94(5):642-6 - PubMed
  2. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012 May;22(4):593-8 - PubMed
  3. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Aug;13(8):e353-61 - PubMed
  4. Hum Pathol. 2004 Jun;35(6):649-62 - PubMed
  5. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Apr;21(3):511-6 - PubMed
  6. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jan-Feb;62(1):10-29 - PubMed
  7. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;120(2 Pt 1):383-97 - PubMed
  8. Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Jul;86(1):38-44 - PubMed
  9. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Jan;124(1):31-5 - PubMed
  10. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Apr;125(1):103-8 - PubMed
  11. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jan;128(1):83-87 - PubMed
  12. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 Aug;96(8):889-92 - PubMed
  13. Gynecol Oncol. 2001 Sep;82(3):470-3 - PubMed
  14. Mod Pathol. 2005 May;18(5):673-80 - PubMed
  15. Br J Cancer. 2003 Dec 1;89(11):2023-6 - PubMed
  16. J Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec;106(8):938-41 - PubMed
  17. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Apr;24(2):120-7 - PubMed
  18. Cancer. 2011 Sep 15;117(18):4231-7 - PubMed
  19. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jan;128(1):77-82 - PubMed
  20. Br J Cancer. 2003 Jan 27;88(2):245-50 - PubMed
  21. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4 - PubMed
  22. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1141-9 - PubMed
  23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 May;101(2):205-10 - PubMed

Publication Types