Han Kyung Hee, Park Noh Hyun, Kim Hee Seung, Chung Hyun Hoon, Kim Jae Weon, Song Yong Sang
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Aug;134(2):293-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.010. Epub 2014 May 20.
We compared the impact of positive peritoneal cytology on prognosis between patients with endometrioid and non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 490 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer between 2000 and 2012. These patients were divided into two groups: endometrioid and non-endometrioid histologies. We compared the patients' baseline characteristics, tumor recurrence patterns, and survival to determine the prognostic factors and how they differed between the two groups.
Of the included patients, 448 had endometrioid histology and 42 had non-endometrioid histology. A total of 27 patients experienced tumor recurrence: 17 with endometrioid histology (4.0%) and 10 with non-endometrioid histology (23.8%). Compared to endometrioid type, non-endometrioid type exhibited higher rates of recurrence (p<0.01). Recurrence sites of the non-endometrioid group were mainly peritoneal seeding (p<0.01) and distant organ metastasis (p=0.02). Risk factors for tumor recurrence included patient age, stage of disease, and adjuvant treatment for endometrioid type. On the other hand, in cases of non-endometrioid endometrial cancer, positive peritoneal cytology was an independent prognostic factor regardless of tumor stage (HR, 15.34; 95% CI, 3.55-66.25; p<0.01). Among cases with non-endometrioid histology, median recurrence-free survival significantly differed between the negative peritoneal cytology group and the positive peritoneal cytology group (120 months versus 22 months, respectively; p<0.01).
Positive peritoneal cytology is an independent prognostic factor for patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer.
我们比较了子宫内膜样癌和非子宫内膜样癌患者中阳性腹膜细胞学对预后的影响。
我们回顾性分析了2000年至2012年间诊断为子宫内膜癌的490例患者的病历。这些患者被分为两组：子宫内膜样组织学组和非子宫内膜样组织学组。我们比较了患者的基线特征、肿瘤复发模式和生存率，以确定预后因素以及两组之间的差异。
纳入的患者中，448例为子宫内膜样组织学，42例为非子宫内膜样组织学。共有27例患者出现肿瘤复发：17例为子宫内膜样组织学（4.0%），10例为非子宫内膜样组织学（23.8%）。与子宫内膜样类型相比，非子宫内膜样类型的复发率更高（p<0.01）。非子宫内膜样组的复发部位主要是腹膜种植（p<0.01）和远处器官转移（p=0.02）。肿瘤复发的危险因素包括患者年龄、疾病分期和子宫内膜样类型的辅助治疗。另一方面，在非子宫内膜样子宫内膜癌病例中，无论肿瘤分期如何，阳性腹膜细胞学都是一个独立的预后因素（HR，15.34；95%CI，3.55-66.25；p<0.01）。在非子宫内膜样组织学病例中，腹膜细胞学阴性组和阳性组的无复发生存期中位数有显著差异（分别为120个月和22个月；p<0.01）。
阳性腹膜细胞学是非子宫内膜样子宫内膜癌患者的独立预后因素。
