Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this multicenter case–control study was to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium (MAE) and endometrioid endometrial carcinoma (EEC).
Methods
A retrospective review of two cancer registry databases in Turkey was conducted to identify patients diagnosed with MAE between January 1996 and December 2012. Each patient was matched with a control EEC patient by age and tumor grade. Cases and controls were compared in terms of known risk factors for lymph node metastasis, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).
Results
The analysis included 112 patients with MAE and 112 with EEC. No significant difference in baseline characteristics was evident between the two groups. Lymphovascular space invasion, deep myometrial invasion, cervical involvement, and tumor diameter did not differ significantly between the mucinous and endometrioid cases. Multivariate analysis confirmed that only mucinous histology (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.1–4.5; P = 0.02) was an independent predictor of lymph node involvement. Although the median DFS and OS tended to be better in the endometrioid group, the differences were not statistically significant. Routine appendectomy was performed in 52 (46.2 %) patients with MAE. No mucinous tumor of the appendix was identified.
Conclusion
Routine appendectomy is not necessary when the appendix is grossly normal at the time of surgery for MAE. Although the DFS and OS of EEC and MAE patients were similar, the risk of nodal metastasis in MAE patients was greater than that in ECC patients, and we thus suggest to perform retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (both pelvic and para-aortic) for patients with MAE during the initial operation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P et al (2005) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 366:491–505
Ross JC, Eifel PJ, Cox RS et al (1983) Primary mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. A clinicopathologic and histochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 7:715–729
Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R et al (2006) Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 106:812–819
Ambros RA, Sherman ME, Zahn CM et al (1995) Endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma: a distinctive lesion specifically associated with tumors displaying serous differentiation. Hum Pathol 26:1260–1267
Kurman RJ, Kaminski PF, Norris HJ (1985) The behavior of endometrial hyperplasia. A long-term study of “untreated” hyperplasia in 170 patients. Cancer 56:403–412
Sutton G, Kavanagh J, Wolfson A et al (2005) Corpus: mesenchymal tumors. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC, Barakat RR, Markman M, Randall ME (eds) Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology, 4th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 873–894
Hacker NF (2005) Uterine cancer. In: Berek JS, Hacker NF (eds) Practical gynecologic oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 396–442
Reed N, Green JA, Gershenson DM et al (2011) Rare and uncommon gynecological cancers, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–182
Musa F, Huang M, Adams B et al (2012) Mucinous histology is a risk factor for nodal metastases in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125:541–545
Galic V, Schiavone MB, Herzog TJ et al (2013) Prognostic significance of mucinous differentiation of endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer Invest 31:500–504
Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, et al (2014) WHO classification of tumors of female reproductive organs, 4th edn. World Health Organization
Murray SK, Young RH, Scully RE (2003) Unusual epithelial and stromal changes in myoinvasive endometrioid adenocarcinoma: a study of their frequency, associated diagnostic problems, and prognostic significance. Int J Gynecol Pathol 22:324–333
Todo Y, Okamoto K, Hayashi M et al (2007) A validation study of a scoring system to estimate the risk of lymph node metastasis for patients with endometrial cancer for tailoring the indication of lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 104:623–628
Todo Y, Sakuragi N, Nishida R et al (2003) Combined use of magnetic resonance imaging, CA 125 assay, histologic type, and histologic grade in the prediction of lymph node metastasis in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1265–1272
Lee KB, Ki KD, Lee JM et al (2009) The risk of lymph node metastasis based on myometrial invasion and tumor grade in endometrioid uterine cancers: a multicenter, retrospective Korean study. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2882–2887
Kang S, Kang WD, Chung HH et al (2012) Preoperative identification of a low-risk group for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: a Korean gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 30:1329–1334
AlHilli MM, Podratz KC, Dowdy SC et al (2013) Risk-scoring system for the individualized prediction of lymphatic dissemination in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 131:103–108
Bogani G, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA et al (2014) Role of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: current evidence. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:301–311
Di Saia PJ, Creasman WT (2012) Clinical gynecologic oncology, 8th edn. pp 141–174
Rauh-Hain JA, Vargas RJ, Clemmer J et al (2014) Mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium compared with endometrioid endometrial cancer: a SEER analysis. Am J Clin Oncol (Epub ahead of print)
Addison AB, Miller K, Hammouch D et al (2012) Appendiceal metastasis 10 years following ‘curative’ resection for low-grade primary endometrial carcinoma. BMJ Case Rep. pii:bcr1020114895
Dilek S, Dilek U, Dede M et al (2006) The role of omentectomy and appendectomy during the surgical staging of clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:795–798
Ozdal B, Unlu BS, Yalcin HR et al (2013) Role of omentectomy and appendectomy in surgical staging of endometrioid endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 34:322–324
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge all gynecological pathologists that we worked throughout the entire study period.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest relative to this work and this study did not receive pharmaceutical company support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Gungorduk, K., Ozdemir, A., Ertas, I.E. et al. Is mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium a risk factor for lymph node involvement? A multicenter case–control study. Int J Clin Oncol 20, 782–789 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-014-0767-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-014-0767-2