Obstetrics & Gynecology:
Comparative Performance of the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' Staging System for Uterine Corpus Cancer
Lewin, Sharyn N. MD; Herzog, Thomas J. MD; Medel, Nicanor I. Barrena MD; Deutsch, Israel MD; Burke, William M. MD; Sun, Xuming MS; Wright, Jason D. MD
From the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; and the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, New York.
See related articles on pages 1027 and 1035.
Presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer, March 14–17, 2010, San Francisco, California.
Corresponding author: Jason D. Wright, MD, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10032; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a population-based analysis comparing the performance of the 1988 and 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging systems.
METHODS: Women with endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus treated between 1988 and 2006 and recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were analyzed. Women were classified based on 1988 and 2009 FIGO staging systems. Major changes in the 2009 system include: 1) classification of patients with stage IA and IB tumors as stage IA; 2) elimination of stage IIA; and 3) stratification of stage IIIC into pelvic nodes only (IIIC1) or paraaortic nodal (IIIC2) involvement. Survival and use of adjuvant therapy were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 81,902 women were identified. Based on the 1988 staging system, survival for stage IA was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90–91%) compared with 88.9% (95% CI 88–89%) for IB tumors. In the 2009 system, survival was 89.6% (95% CI 89–90%) for stage IA and 77.6% (95% CI 76–79%) for stage IB. The survival for FIGO 1988 stage IIA was superior to stage IC, whereas in the 2009 system, survival for stage II was inferior to all stage I patients. The newly defined stage IIIC substages are prognostically different. Survival for stage IIIC1 was 57.0% (95% CI 54–60%) compared with 49.4% (95% CI 46–53%) for stage IIIC2.
CONCLUSION: The 2009 FIGO staging system for uterine corpus cancer is highly prognostic. The reduction in stage I substages and the separation of stage III will further clarify important prognostic features.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III
In the United States, it is estimated that over 42,000 women are diagnosed each year with endometrial cancer and that 7,700 women die from the disease.1 Worldwide, nearly 200,000 cases of uterine cancer are diagnosed annually.2 Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for most women with endometrial cancer.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, endometrial cancer was staged clinically.3 A number of surgical-pathology studies carried out by the Gynecologic Oncology Group revealed the association between uterine factors such as grade and depth of invasion and the risk of lymph node metastasis in women with apparent early-stage tumors.4–6 The importance of nodal disease as a prognostic factor was recognized in 1988 when the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) determined that tumors of the corpus uteri should be staged surgically. The 1988 FIGO system incorporated three substages for women with uterine confined cancer, whereas those with pelvic and paraaortic nodal disease were classified as stage IIIC.3
In 2009, FIGO proposed a revised staging classification system for endometrial cancer. The revised staging systems contained a number of changes. First, women with stage IA and IB tumors were combined into a single stage, stage IA. Second, cervical glandular involvement was eliminated from the staging criteria; only women with cervical stromal invasion were classified as stage II. Third, peritoneal cytology has been removed as a staging criterion. Finally, patients with nodal metastasis have been stratified into those with pelvic nodal disease (stage IIIC1) and those with paraaortic nodal involvement (stage IIIC2).3
Given the importance of tumor stage on both prognosis as well as adjuvant treatment selection, we sought to examine the performance of the 2009 FIGO staging system in a population-based data set. The objective of our study was to compare the performance of the 1988 and 2009 FIGO staging systems for women with uterine corpus cancer diagnosed and treated throughout the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was obtained. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results is population-based registry that incorporates approximately 26% of the US population.7 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results comprises several geographically distinct tumor registries. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results' 17 registries were analyzed.8 All data were publicly available, deidentified, and exempt from Institutional Review Board review.
Patients with endometrioid adenocarcinomas of the uterine corpus treated between 1988 and 2006 were included in the analysis. Clinical and pathologic data, including age at diagnosis (younger than 40, 40–65, older than 65 years), tumor grade (1, 2, or 3), and marital status, were collected. Year of diagnosis was classified as 1988–1994, 1995–2000, or 2001–2006. Patients were categorized based on the geographic area of residence at the time of diagnosis: central (Detroit, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Utah), eastern (Connecticut, New Jersey, Atlanta, rural Georgia), and western (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Los Angeles, New Mexico, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle) United States. Use of adjuvant radiation therapy (external beam or intracavitary implants) was collected. Whether or not lymphadenectomy was performed at the initial operative procedure was documented as was the presence or absence of nodal metastases.
Staging information was derived from the recorded extent of disease codes. Based on extent of disease, each patient's stage was determined based on the 1988 FIGO staging criteria as well as the revised 2009 FIGO staging criteria.3 Major changes in the 2009 system include: 1) classification of patients with stage IA and IB tumors as stage IA; 2) elimination of stage IIA; and 3) stratification of stage IIIC into pelvic nodes only (IIIC1) or paraaortic nodal (IIIC2) involvement. The entire cohort was analyzed and a separate analysis performed in the subset of women who underwent lymphadenectomy.
The vital status of each patient was recorded. Survival was calculated as the number of months from cancer diagnosis to date of death. Five-year survival was calculated for each patient based on stage. For women with early-stage (stage I and II) tumors, a separate analysis was performed after stratification by tumor grade. For each group, survival was reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to determine the prognostic significance of each staging system while controlling for other covariates. Separate Cox models were generated for both staging systems. Survival was examined further using Kaplan-Meier curves, which were compared using the log rank test. Patients alive at last follow-up were censored. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.2.
A total 81,902 women with endometrioid adenocarcinomas of the uterus treated between 1988 and 2006 were identified. The stage distribution for the FIGO 1988 and FIGO 2009 staging systems is highlighted in Table 1. According to the FIGO 1988 system, 18,960 (23.2%) patients were classified as stage IA, 29,393 (35.9%) as stage IB, and 8,404 (10.3%) as stage IC. In the FIGO 2009 staging system, 48,353 (59.0%) patients shifted to stage IA, whereas 8,404 (10.3%) patients were classified as stage IB. The new FIGO 2009 stage II had 1,618 (2%) patients, the same as stage IIB in the FIGO 1988 system. With the absence of stage IIIA positive cytology only, the number of patients in the FIGO 2009 stage IIIA decreased to 2,137 (2.6%) compared with 3,003 (3.7%) in FIGO 1988. The number of patients in stage IIIC was 3,120 (3.8%) patients in FIGO 1988. The FIGO 2009 system classified 1,842 (2.3%) women as stage IIIC1 and 1,010 (1.2%) as stage IIIC2. Adequate pathologic data to accurately assign a stage were not available for 11,928 (14.6%) women for the FIGO 1988 system and 14,722 (18.0%) for the FIGO 2009 criteria.
As illustrated in Table 1, 37,278 (45.5%) patients underwent lymph node sampling. According to the FIGO 1988 staging system, 6,075 (16.3%) patients were classified as stage IA, 13,049 (35.0%) as stage IB, and 4,920 (13.2%) as stage IC. In the FIGO 2009 staging system, 19,124 (51.3%) patients shifted to stage IA, whereas 4,920 (13.2%) patients had stage IB disease. The new FIGO 2009 stage II had 1,094 (2.9%), the same as stage IIB in the FIGO 1988 system. With the absence of stage IIIA positive cytology only, the number of patients in the FIGO 2009 stage IIIA decreased to 1,084 (2.9%) compared with 1,695 (4.5%) in FIGO 1988. The number of with stage IIIC tumors was 2,971 (8%) in FIGO 1988. FIGO 2009 classified 1,780 (4.8%) as stage IIIC1 and 948 (2.5%) as stage IIIC2.
Overall 5-year survival rates of each stage according to the FIGO 1988 and FIGO 2009 staging systems are shown in Table 2. Data are further stratified based on the presence of lymph node sampling. Based on the FIGO 1988 system, survival for stage IA was 90.7% (95% CI 90–91%), 88.9% (95% CI 88–89%) for stage IB, and 77.6% (95% CI 76–79%) for stage IC. In the FIGO 2009 system, there was a more clear delineation in survival among the substages for stage I patients; survival was 89.6% (95% CI 89–90%) for stage IA and 77.6% (95% CI 76–79%) for stage IB. In the FIGO 1988 system, survival for stage IIA (78.9%; 95% CI 76–81%) was superior to that of stage IC (77.6%; 95% CI 76–79%). In the FIGO 2009 system, survival for stage II (73.5%; 95% CI 71–76%) was inferior to all stage I patients, including those women with deep myometrial invasion (77.6%; 95% CI 76–79%). The newly defined stage IIIC substages were prognostically different. Survival for stage IIIC1 was 57.0% (95% CI 54–60%) compared with 49.4% (95% CI 46–53%) for stage IIIC2.
Similar trends were noted for women who underwent lymphadenectomy; survival for FIGO 1988 stage IA was 91.9% (95% CI 91–93%) compared with 89.6% (95% CI 89–90%) for stage IB. In the FIGO 2009 system, survival for stage IA was 90.3% (95% CI 90–91%) compared with 80.0% (95% CI 78–81%) for stage IB. Again, based on the FIGO 1988 schema, survival for stage IIA (84.7%; 95% CI 82–87%) was higher than that of stage IC (80.0%; 95% CI 79–81%). The newly defined stage IIIC substages were prognostically different; survival for stage IIIC1 was 58.3% (95% CI 55–61%) compared with 51.2 (95% CI 47–55%) for stage IIIC2.
Patients with early-stage tumors were then stratified by grade (Table 3). Matched by grade and stage, survival between stage IA and IB based on the FIGO 1988 system overlapped. For example, survival for FIGO stage IA grade 2 was 89.0% (95% CI 88–90%) compared with 87.9% (95% CI 87–89%) for stage IB grade 2. Survival was 78.9% (95% CI 76–81%) for FIGO 1988 stage IA grade 3 compared with 80.6% for stage IB grade 3. Less overlap was noted for stage I tumors based on the FIGO 2009 system. It was again noted that survival for FIGO 1988 stage IIA was often superior to stage IC in the FIGO 1988 schema. Similar trends for stage I and II tumors were noted when the analysis was limited to women who had undergone nodal sampling.
Cox proportional hazards models of cancer-specific survival were developed to examine the performance of each staging system while accounting for the influence of other prognostic variables (Table 4). Both the FIGO 1988 system and the FIGO 2009 staging schema were highly correlated with cancer-specific survival. The hazard ratio for death increased incrementally with stage for both systems. It was again noted that the FIGO 2009 stages IIIC1 and IIIC2 were prognostically distinct.
The Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival by stage for the FIGO 1988 and FIGO 2009 staging systems are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Again, stage was highly prognostic for both staging systems (P<.001 for both). Among women with early-stage disease, survival was similar for FIGO stage IA and IB. For women with advanced-stage tumors, there was a clear difference in survival between stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 tumors.
Use of adjuvant radiotherapy by stage is shown in Table 5. A total of 4.3% of women with FIGO 1988 stage IA, 15.0% with IB, and 52.8% with stage IC received radiotherapy. Based on the FIGO 2009 criteria, 10.7% of stage IA patients received radiation. Among women who underwent lymphadenectomy, 1.4% of patients with FIGO 1988 stage IA tumors and 8.3% with FIGO stage IB tumors were treated with radiation. Over 60% of women with stage IIIC tumors in the FIGO 1988 system and stage IIIC1 and IIIC2 tumors based on FIGO 2009 criteria received adjuvant radiotherapy.
Our findings suggest that the 2009 FIGO staging system for uterine corpus cancer is highly prognostic for women with endometrioid adenocarcinomas. Removal of women with cervical glandular involvement from stage II and stratification of patients with stage IIIC disease improved the correlation of stage with survival. Because survival is very similar for patients with tumors confined to the endometrium and women with superficial myometrial invasion, combining FIGO 1988 stages IA and IB provided a reduction in the number of stage I substages without reducing prognostic discrimination.
The prognosis for most women with uterine-confined endometrial cancer is excellent.9–11 We noted that for patients with tumors limited to the endometrium, 5-year survival was 91% compared with 89% for those with early myometrial invasion. Even among women with high-grade tumors, survival was very similar between FIGO 1988 stage IA grade 3 and stage IB grade 3 tumors (80% compared with 81%, respectively). Given the similar prognosis of these subgroups, it appears reasonable to combine FIGO 1988 stages IA and IB into a single substage (FIGO 2009 stage IA).
The prognostic significance of cervical glandular involvement (FIGO 1988 stage IIA) for endometrial cancer has been questioned.12–15 Although there is a clear difference in survival for women with cervical glandular and cervical stromal invasion, it appears that tumor grade and depth of myometrial invasion are more significant prognostic factors than cervical glandular involvement.12–15 In our series, we noted that the median 5-year survival for FIGO 1988 stage IIA disease was similar to that of FIGO 1988 stage IC tumors. When stratified by grade, survival for stage IIA grade 1 tumors approached that of stage IA disease. These findings strongly support the decision to eliminate cervical glandular involvement from the 2009 staging system. With inclusion of only women with cervical stromal invasion as stage II in the FIGO 2009 scheme, the survival for stage II disease is inferior to that of all stage I substages.
Metastasis to the regional lymph nodes is one of the most important prognostic factors for women with endometrial cancer.4,6,16,17 In the Gynecologic Oncology Group's surgical–pathology study of women with clinical stage I and II endometrial cancer, there was a clear differential in survival between women with pelvic and paraaortic nodal metastases.4 We noted similar trends: 5-year survival was 58% for women with only pelvic nodal metastases (stage IIIC1) compared with 51% for those with paraaortic nodal disease (stage IIIC2). In addition to important prognostic information, the stratification of stage IIIC tumors has important implications for treatment planning because multimodality therapy with both radiation and chemotherapy is now frequently used for women with nodal metastases.18,19
In addition to the changes described, the revised FIGO staging system has eliminated peritoneal cytology from the staging criteria. Whether positive peritoneal cytology is an independent risk factor for endometrial cancer is actively debated.20–23 Although our group and others have found that positive pelvic washings are an independent predictor of decreased survival, other investigators have suggested that cytologic disease just potentiates the effects of other poor prognostic factors.20–23 Although peritoneal washings are not a part of the new staging guidelines, it is recommended that peritoneal cytology be reported separately.
Although our study benefits from the inclusion of a large number of women, we acknowledge several limitations. Most importantly, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results lacks some pathologic data. For example, for those women with cervical glandular involvement, it is not possible to assess depth of tumor invasion. As such, there was a small number of patients that could not be completely staged in both the FIGO 1988 and FIGO 2009 systems. We cannot exclude the possibility that exclusion of these patients may have biased our outcomes. Second, not all women underwent comprehensive surgical staging. To overcome this limitation we performed separate analyses that included only those women who had lymph node dissection. It should be noted that the number of nodes removed was highly variable and not standardized. Although this reflects treatment patterns of women with endometrial cancer, we cannot exclude the possibility that a small number of women with occult stage IIIC disease were not detected. Although data on radiation is available, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results does not record the use of either chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Although chemotherapy was not in widespread use for endometrial cancer during the majority of the years of our study, chemotherapy has now become an increasingly important modality in the management of uterine cancer.24 Finally, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results lacks data on recurrences, and as such, we were only able to analyze survival.
Although our data suggest that the revised FIGO staging system is highly prognostic, a number of controversies remain. Perhaps most important is the lack of agreement regarding the extent of staging that is required for women with endometrial cancer.25 Currently there is no consensus on which patients require lymphadenectomy and what defines an adequate lymph node dissection in those women who undergo the procedure.25,26 Recently two large, randomized European trials have both reported that lymphadenectomy had no effect on survival for women with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer.27,28 Although significant methodologic issues have been raised regarding both trials, the fact remains that a large number of women with endometrial cancer do not undergo staging lymphadenectomy.26,29 In our cohort, 46% of patients underwent some form of nodal evaluation. Although survival clearly differed by stage when the nodal status was known, the general performance characteristics of the revised FIGO system were similar regardless of whether the nodal status was known.
In conclusion, our findings suggest that the revised FIGO 2009 staging system for uterine corpus cancer is highly prognostic in women with endometrioid tumors. The reduction in stage I substages, the elimination of cervical glandular involvement, and the stratification of women with nodal disease all improved the performance of the staging system.
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225–49.
2. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74–108.
3. Creasman W. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:109.
4. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, Creasman WT, Heller P, Homesley HD, et al. Relationship between surgical–pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1991;40:55–65.
5. Boronow RC, Morrow CP, Creasman WT, Disaia PJ, Silverberg SG, Miller A, et al. Surgical staging in endometrial cancer: clinical–pathologic findings of a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:825–32.
6. Creasman WT, Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Homesley HD, Graham JE, Heller PB. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 1987;60(suppl):2035–41.
7. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, Data Quality. National Cancer Institute, 2007. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/about/
. Retrieved October 1, 2007.
8. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 9 Regs Limited-Use, Nov 2006 Sub (1973–2004), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2007, based on the November 2006 submission. Available at: http://.seer.cancer.gov
. Retrieved October 1, 2007.
9. Chan JK, Wu H, Cheung MK, Shin JY, Osann K, Kapp DS. The outcomes of 27,063 women with unstaged endometrioid uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:282–8.
10. Straughn JM Jr, Huh WK, Kelly FJ, Leath CA 3rd, Kleinberg MJ, Hyde J Jr, et al. Conservative management of stage I endometrial carcinoma after surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 2002;84:194–200.
11. Wright JD, Fiorelli J, Schiff PB, Burke WM, Kansler AL, Cohen CJ, et al. Racial disparities for uterine corpus tumors: changes in clinical characteristics and treatment over time. Cancer 2009;115:1276–85.
12. Reisinger SA, Staros EB, Mohiuddin M. Survival and failure analysis in stage II endometrial cancer using the revised 1988 FIGO staging system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:1027–32.
13. Sartori E, Gadducci A, Landoni F, Lissoni A, Maggino T, Zola P, et al. Clinical behavior of 203 stage II endometrial cancer cases: the impact of primary surgical approach and of adjuvant radiation therapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2001;11:430–7.
14. Cohn DE, Woeste EM, Cacchio S, Zanagnolo VL, Havrilesky LJ, Mariani A, et al. Clinical and pathologic correlates in surgical stage II endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1062–7.
15. Wright JD, Fiorelli J, Kansler AL, Burke WM, Schiff PB, Cohen CJ, et al. Optimizing the management of stage II endometrial cancer: the role of radical hysterectomy and radiation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:419.e1–7.
16. DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT, Boronow RC, Blessing JA. Risk factors and recurrent patterns in Stage I endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:1009–15.
17. Greven KM, Lanciano RM, Corn B, Case D, Randall ME. Pathologic stage III endometrial carcinoma. Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence. Cancer 1993;71:3697–702.
18. Geller MA, Ivy J, Dusenbery KE, Ghebre R, Isaksson Vogel R, Argenta PA. A single institution experience using sequential multi-modality adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation in the ‘sandwich’ method for high risk endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:19–23.
19. Secord AA, Havrilesky LJ, O'Malley DM, Bae-Jump V, Fleming ND, Broadwater G, et al. A multicenter evaluation of sequential multimodality therapy and clinical outcome for the treatment of advanced endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:442–7.
20. Bansal S, Buck AM, Herzog TJ, Deutsch I, Burke WM, Wright JD. Stage IIIA endometrial carcinoma: outcome and predictors of survival. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:100–5.
21. Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, Calingaert B, Alvarez Secord A, Valea FA, Clarke-Pearson DL, et al. The prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology and adnexal/serosal metastasis in stage IIIA endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:401–5.
22. Mariani A, Webb MJ, Keeney GL, Aletti G, Podratz KC. Assessment of prognostic factors in stage IIIA endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2002;86:38–44.
23. Tebeu PM, Popowski GY, Verkooijen HM, Casals J, Lüdicke F, Zeciri G, et al. Impact of peritoneal cytology on survival of endometrial cancer patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy. Br J Cancer 2003;89:2023–6.
24. Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, Spirtos NM, Mannel RS, Fowler J, et al. Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:36–44.
25. Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Podratz KC. New surgical staging of endometrial cancer: 20 years later. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;105:110–1.
26. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Cohn DE. Lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: the controversy. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:6–8.
27. Benedetti Panici P, Basile S, Maneschi F, Alberto Lissoni A, Signorelli M, Scambia G, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy vs. no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1707–16.
28. Kitchener H, Swart AM, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MK. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet 2009;373:125–36.
29. Creasman WT, Mutch DE, Herzog TJ. ASTEC lymphadenectomy and radiation therapy studies: are conclusions valid? Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:293–4.
This article has been cited 9 time(s).
Journal of Gynecologic OncologyA comparison of uterine papillary serous, clear cell carcinomas, and grade 3 endometrioid corpus cancers using 2009 FIGO staging systemJournal of Gynecologic Oncology
Cancer Prevention ResearchProgesterone Enhances Calcitriol Antitumor Activity by Upregulating Vitamin D Receptor Expression and Promoting Apoptosis in Endometrial Cancer CellsCancer Prevention Research
Gynecologic OncologyPrediction of lymph node and distant metastasis in patients with endometrial carcinoma: A new model based on demographics, biochemical factors, and tumor histologyGynecologic Oncology
Gynecologic OncologyRecurrence-free and 5-year survival following robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial carcinomaGynecologic Oncology
European RadiologyEndometrial cancer: preoperative staging using three-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T: a prospective comparative studyEuropean Radiology
Gynecologic OncologyPrognostic value of preoperative metabolic tumor volume measured by F-18-FDG PET/CT and MRI in patients with endometrial cancerGynecologic Oncology
Gynecologic OncologyFrequent mutations in the RPL22 gene and its clinical and functional implicationsGynecologic Oncology
Annals of OncologyEndometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-upAnnals of Oncology
Gynecologic OncologyTailoring systematic lymphadenectomy in high-risk clinical early stage endometrial cancer: The role of 18F-FDG PET/CTGynecologic Oncology
© 2010 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
What does "Remember me" mean?
By checking this box, you'll stay logged in until you logout. You'll get easier access to your articles, collections,
media, and all your other content, even if you close your browser or shut down your
To protect your most sensitive data and activities (like changing your password),
we'll ask you to re-enter your password when you access these services.
What if I'm on a computer that I share with others?
If you're using a public computer or you share this computer with others, we recommend
that you uncheck the "Remember me" box.
Looking for ABOG articles? Visit our ABOG MOC II collection. The selected Green Journal articles are free through the end of the calendar year.
ACOG MEMBER SUBSCRIPTION ACCESS
If you are an ACOG Fellow and have not logged in or registered to Obstetrics & Gynecology, please follow these step-by-step instructions to access journal content with your member subscription.
Data is temporarily unavailable. Please try again soon.
Readers Of this Article Also Read