Risk Stratification of Endometrial Cancer Patients: FIGO Stage, Biomarkers and Molecular Classification

J.C. Kasius, J.M.A. Pijnenborg, K. Lindemann, D. Forsse, J. van Zwol, G.B. Kristensen, C. Krakstad, H.M.J. Werner, F. Amant*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal(Systematic) Review article peer-review

Abstract

Simple Summary: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in developed countries. Most patients are sufficiently treated with removal of uterus, tubes and ovaries. It depends on the estimated risk of metastases at diagnosis if more extensive surgery (removal of lymph nodes, peritoneum and/or omentum), to detect small metastases, is indicated. Metastases are associated with a higher risk of recurrence and justify adjuvant treatment (i.e., radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy). Recently it is advised to also subdivide EC into four molecular subgroups. Each subgroup is highly associated to a certain risk of recurrence and helps to decide for adjuvant treatment. What surgery should be performed in each of the subgroups is currently unknown. Moreover, it is uncertain if integration of other factors into the molecular classification could help to improve the risk classification. This review summarizes different aspects of surgery. Moreover, the relation between metastases and other factors including molecular classification are evaluated.<br>Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in developed countries. The main challenge in EC management is to correctly estimate the risk of metastases at diagnosis and the risk to develop recurrences in the future. Risk stratification determines the need for surgical staging and adjuvant treatment. Detection of occult, microscopic metastases upstages patients, provides important prognostic information and guides adjuvant treatment. The molecular classification subdivides EC into four prognostic subgroups: POLE ultramutated; mismatch repair deficient (MMRd); nonspecific molecular profile (NSMP); and TP53 mutated (p53abn). How surgical staging should be adjusted based on preoperative molecular profiling is currently unknown. Moreover, little is known whether and how other known prognostic biomarkers affect prognosis prediction independent of or in addition to these molecular subgroups. This review summarizes the factors incorporated in surgical staging (i.e., peritoneal washing, lymph node dissection, omentectomy and peritoneal biopsies), and its impact on prognosis and adjuvant treatment decisions in an era of molecular classification of EC. Moreover, the relation between FIGO stage and molecular classification is evaluated including the current gaps in knowledge and future perspectives.
Original languageEnglish
Article number5848
Number of pages19
JournalCancers
Volume13
Issue number22
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2021

Keywords

  • endometrial cancer
  • uterine neoplasm
  • surgical staging
  • FIGO stage
  • molecular classification
  • TCGA
  • ProMisE
  • TRANSPORTEC
  • LYMPH-NODE METASTASIS
  • CIRCULATING TUMOR-CELLS
  • PHASE-III TRIAL
  • PERITONEAL CYTOLOGY
  • INTEROBSERVER VARIABILITY
  • PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER
  • PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE
  • ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY
  • HIGH-INTERMEDIATE
  • ASTEC TRIAL

Cite this