IMPACT OF TUMOR SITE ON LYMPH NODE METASTASIS AND SURVIVAL OUTCOMES IN CARCINOMA ENDOMETRIUM: A RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE- INSTITUTION STUDY
Main Article Content
Keywords
Endometrial carcinoma, tumor site, lower uterine segment, lymph node metastasis, survival, retrospective study
Abstract
Background: Tumor location within the uterus may influence lymphatic spread and prognosis in endometrial carcinoma. Understanding these patterns is essential for risk stratification and tailoring treatment strategies.
Objective: To evaluate the relationship between primary tumor site in the endometrial cavity and its association with lymph node metastasis, clinicopathological characteristics, and survival outcomes in patients undergoing curative-intent treatment.
Methods: This retrospective study included 156 patients with non-metastatic carcinoma endometrium who underwent curative surgery at a tertiary care center between January 2016 and December 2020. Clinicopathological features, tumor site, nodal status, and survival data were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 29.0.
Results: Mean patient age was 57.65±9.24 years. Most tumors (66%) were endometrioid histology. Tumors involving the lower uterine segment (LUS) were more common in younger, premenopausal women and were associated with high-grade histology, increased lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI), deep myometrial invasion, cervical involvement, and advanced FIGO stage. Lymph node metastasis was observed in 14% of cases. Mean overall survival was highest in fundal tumors (94.6 months) and lowest in LUS tumors (74.3 months). Disease-free survival followed a similar trend.
Conclusion: Lower uterine segment involvement is associated with aggressive pathological features and poorer survival outcomes in endometrial cancer. Tumor location should be considered in prognostic evaluation and treatment planning.
References
2. Indian Council of Medical Research. Consensus Document for Management of Uterine Cancer. ICMR, 2019.
3. Chaurasia B. Human Anatomy, 5th ed., Volume 2. CBS Publishers; 392.
4. Koskas M, Amant F, Mirza MR, et al. FIGO Cancer Report 2021. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;20 Oct.
5. Masuda K, Banno K, Yanokura M, et al. Carcinoma of the Lower Uterine Segment (LUS): Clinicopathological Characteristics and Association with Lynch Syndrome. Curr Genomics. 2011;12(1):25–9.
6. Bartosch C, Pires-Luís AS, Meireles C, et al. Pathologic Findings in Prophylactic and Nonprophylactic Hysterectomy Specimens of Patients With Lynch Syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:1177–91.
7. Gouthaman S, Saravanan R, Maharajan S, et al. Clinicopathological analysis of carcinoma endometrium at a tertiary care centre in Chennai – a retrospective study. J Evid Based Med Healthc. 2021;8(29):2625–32. doi:10.18410/jebmh/2021/484
8. Kumar D, Noushad N, Viswanathan M, Sharma A. Endometrial Carcinoma: Survival Analysis at a Tertiary Care Center in India. Indian J Gynecol Oncol. 2022;20:69. doi:10.1007/s40944-022-00672-7
9. Salehiniya H, Allahqoli L, Momenimovahed Z. Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer in the World: A Narrative Review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2024;51(7):169.
10. Zhen Y, Zhang X. Clinicopathological Features, Molecular Mechanisms, and Prognosis of Microcystic, Elongated, and Fragmented (MELF) Pattern in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Review. Gynecol Obstet Clin Med. 2024.
11. Doll KM, Tseng J, Denslow SA, Fader AN, Gehrig PA. High-grade endometrial cancer: Revisiting the impact of tumor size and location on outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):44–49. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.10.023
12. Suchetha S, Mathew AP, Rema P, Thomas S. Pattern of Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer: A Single Institution Experience. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021;12(1):73–77. doi:10.1007/s13193-020-01227-y
13. Wang H, Xiao Y, Cai Y, Zhou Y, et al. Clinicopathological Features and Prognoses of Lower Uterine Segment Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study. Int J Womens Health. 2024;16:1401–1411.