Elsevier

Gynecologic Oncology

Volume 153, Issue 3, June 2019, Pages 670-675
Gynecologic Oncology

Review Article
Low-volume disease in endometrial cancer: The role of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.02.027Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Sentinel node mapping improves detection of stage IIIC endometrial cancer.

  • Patients at low risk of lymphatic spread are more likely to be diagnosed with low volume disease.

  • Patients with micrometastasis in sentinel nodes should be receive adjuvant treatment.

  • Patients with isolated tumor cells in sentinel nodes deserve to be treated on the basis of uterine factors.

Abstract

Nodal assessment represents an integral part of staging procedure for endometrial cancer. The widespread diffusion of sentinel node mapping determinates a phenomenon of migration from stage I to stage III disease, especially for low-risk endometrial cancer patients. The adoption of sentinel node mapping and pathological ultrastaging increase the detection of low volume disease (i.e., micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells), being low volume disease detected in >30% of patients with positive nodes. The prognostic role of low volume disease is discussed as well as the possible adjuvant strategies for patients diagnosed with micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells. The role of further prospective treatments in endometrial cancer, including molecular and genetic profiling, is critically reviewed.

Introduction

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecological malignancy in developed countries, with >55,000 new cases diagnosed every year in the United States (U.S.) [1,2]. EC incidence is increasing: in the U.S. its incidence has increased of >20,000/year cases from 2007 to 2017 [[1], [2], [3]], and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that uterine cancer death rates increased approximately 1.1% per year in the U.S. [4].

Surgery represents the main step of the treatment for EC [4,5]. Hysterectomy (with or without salpingo-oophorectomy) allows tumor removal and can be useful to tailor adjuvant treatments. The role of retroperitoneal staging is still debated [4,5]. In 1988, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) introduced the concept of surgical staging for EC [6]. In 2005, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended surgical staging as an important part of EC management [7]. In 2015, the last practice bulletin published by the committee ACOG in association with Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommended the importance of retroperitoneal staging, reporting that “the initial management of endometrial cancer should include comprehensive surgical staging” [8]. However, randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in EC [9,10]. The cumulative results of these trials showed that the execution of lymphadenectomy increases the risk of developing postoperative morbidity (including lymphoceles, lymphoedema and lymphorrhagia) without significant impacts on oncologic outcomes [9,10]. In the recent years several publications showed that sentinel node mapping is an effective method to identify disease harboring in the lymph nodes, which may allow us to avoid the performance of lymphadenectomy [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]].

The most recent guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN introduced), with a level IIB evidence, acknowledge the concept of sentinel node mapping, stating that “The role of sentinel node mapping in endometrial carcinoma is under evaluation, sentinel node mapping can be considered for the surgical staging of apparent uterine-confined malignancy when there is no metastasis demonstrated by imaging studies or no obvious extra-uterine disease at exploration” [21]. To date, several retrospective experiences underline that sentinel node mapping upholds oncologic results of standard lymphadenectomy, minimizing surgery-related morbidity [[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]]. Furthermore, pathological ultrastaging of sentinel nodes result in a more sensitive and accurate identification of lymphatic disease in comparison to standard lymphadenectomy [[22], [23], [24]]. In fact, the adoption of sentinel node mapping allows to identify low volume disease (i.e., micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells) not detectable via conventional examinations. However, the prognostic value and therapeutic implications related of the detection of low volume disease in EC is still controversial [[25], [26], [27]]. Here, we sought to review the current evidence regarding the importance of pathological ultrastaging, and the role of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells in EC. Further perspective in EC managements are discussed as well.

Section snippets

Pathological ultrastaging

Lymphadenectomy represents the most important staging procedure for the management of endometrial cancer. Nodes' examination allows to identify extra-uterine diffusion, thus permitting to tailor appropriate adjuvant treatments [4,5]. With the increasing adoption of the sentinel node technique, the number of nodes evaluated at pathological examination decreases dramatically. The harvesting of fewer nodes, and the increased importance of accurate assessment to minimize false-negative findings,

The prevalence of low volume disease in endometrial cancer

Accumulating data indicate that the detection of micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells is common in patients undergoing sentinel node mapping [[22], [23], [24], [25]]. In 2013, Kim et al., evaluated data 635 patients undergoing sentinel node mapping (with blue dye) for EC. Among those, 508 (80%) had at least one sentinel node detected during surgery [23]. Routine H&E examination showed metastatic disease in about 7% of patients (35 out of 508). Pathological ultrastaging detected an

Sentinel node mapping improves detection of stage IIIC disease in endometrial cancer

The widespread diffusion of sentinel mapping provides a trend in stage migration from stage I to stage IIIC EC. Consistently with data reporting an increased number of patients with low-volume disease in their lymph nodes, we are observing a growing number of patients upstaged at surgery. Retrospective studies comparing two different methods of nodal assessment (sentinel node mapping vs. lymphadenectomy) highlighted this trend [[11], [12], [13], [14]]. A recent study performed in two referral

The role of adjuvant therapy in low volume disease in endometrial cancer

The presence of low volume disease is of uncertain significance in EC. Although medical literature regarding the adoption of technique and tracers for sentinel node mapping is growing sharply, few data regarding treatment options for patients with low volume disease are available. To date, no specific guidelines describe an optimal management of patients with low volume lymphatic disease. The MSKCC group reported a series of 44 stage IIIC EC with low-volume disease [24]. All these patients were

Future perspective

Changing our surgical practice from lymphadenectomy to sentinel node mapping represents an intermediate step. In fact, molecular classification would offer even more accurate risk stratification. Surgical-pathologic staging is the current standard for assessing the need of postoperative treatments but growing data show that molecular characterization offers more precise prognostic data in comparison with conventional histology and other prognostic features currently available [[31], [32]]. The

Conclusions

With the adoption of sentinel node mapping, detection of low-volume disease represents a common occurrence. Prospective studies shows that low-volume disease accounts for >30% of positive nodes in EC patients. The role of low-volume disease is particularly important for patients affected by low-risk endometrial cancer, in which adjuvant treatments are generally omitted. Moreover, micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells are more likely to be diagnosed in the low-risk than in the high-risk

Conflicts of interest

The Authors declare no conflicts of interest. No funding sources supported this investigation.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: GB., Methodology: All authors.; Project administration: FR.; Supervision: AM; FR.; writing - original draft: GB, AD, BP, writing - review & editing: all authors.

References (36)

  • A. Jemal et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2007

    CA Cancer J. Clin.

    (2007)
  • R.L. Siegel et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2017

    CA Cancer J. Clin.

    (2017)
  • G. Bogani et al.

    Current landscape and future perspective of sentinel node mapping in endometrial cancer

    J. Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2018)
  • CDC et al.

    Uterine Cancer Incidence and Mortality — United States, 1999–2016

    (2018)
  • G. Bogani et al.

    Role of pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: current evidence

    J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res.

    (2014)
  • A.L. Nielsen et al.

    Evaluation of the reproducibility of the revised 1988 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grading system of endometrial cancers with special emphasis on nuclear grading

    Cancer

    (1991)
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

    ACOG practice bulletin, clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005: management of endometrial cancer

    Obstet. Gynecol.

    (2005)
  • Practice bulletin no. 149: endometrial cancer

    Obstet. Gynecol.

    (Apr 2015)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text