Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 3695–3700 | Cite as

Microscopic Omental Metastasis in Clinical Stage I Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-analysis

  • Won Duk Joo
  • Peter E. Schwartz
  • Thomas J. Rutherford
  • Seok Ju Seong
  • Junbeom Ku
  • Hyun Park
  • Sang Geun Jung
  • Min Chul Choi
  • Chan Lee
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Background

A patient with early-stage endometrial cancer may possibly have microscopic metastasis in the omentum, which is associated with a poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for microscopic omental metastasis in patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer to establish the indications for selective omentectomy.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for published studies from inception to August 2014, using terms such as ‘endometrial cancer’ or ‘uterine cancer’ for disease, ‘omentectomy’ or ‘omental biopsy’ for intervention, and ‘metastasis’ for outcome. Two reviewers independently identified the studies that matched the selection criteria. We calculated the pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of each surgicopathologic finding for microscopic omental metastases in clinical stage I endometrial cancer. We also calculated the prevalence of microscopic omental metastases.

Results

Among 1163 patients from ten studies, 22 cases (1.9 %) of microscopic omental metastases were found, which accounted for 26.5 % of all omental metastases. Positive lymph nodes (RR 8.71, 95 % CI 1.38–54.95), adnexal metastases (RR 16.76, 95 % CI 2.60–107.97), and appendiceal implants (RR 161.67, 95 % CI 5.16–5061.03) were highly associated with microscopic omental metastases.

Conclusions

Microscopic omental metastases were not negligible in patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Those with a risk factor of microscopic omental metastases were recommended for selective omentectomy.

Keywords

Endometrial Cancer Clinical Stage Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma Positive Cytology Cochrane Library Database 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by a grant from the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (A070001). The study was presented as a poster abstract at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology 44th Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, Los Angeles, CA, USA, on 10 March 2013.

Disclosure

Won Duk Joo, Peter E. Schwartz, Thomas J. Rutherford, Seok Ju Seong, Junbeom Ku, Hyun Park, Sang Geun Jung, Min Chul Choi, and Chan Lee report no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2015_4443_MOESM1_ESM.eps (3.3 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 1s Forest plots, the risk of microscopic omental metastases and (a) positive lymph nodes; (b) adnexal metastases; (c) appendiceal implants; (d) positive cytology; (e) deep myometrial invasion (≥1/2); (f) histological grade 3 versus grade 1 and 2; (g) histological grade 3 and 2 versus grade 1. LN, lymph node; MM, myometrial. Supplementary material 1 (EPS 3368 kb)
10434_2015_4443_MOESM2_ESM.eps (149 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2s Funnel plots of studies included in the meta-analysis of the risk of microscopic omental metastases and (a) positive lymph nodes; (b) adnexal metastases; (c) deep myometrial invasion (≥1/2); (d) histological grade 3 versus grade 1 and 2; (e) histological grade 3 and 2 versus grade 1. All studies lay inside the funnels with symmetric distribution, suggesting no publication bias in the meta-analysis. LN, lymph node; MM, myometrial Supplementary material 2 (EPS 148 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freij M, Burbos N, Mukhopadhyay D, Lonsdale R, Crocker S, Nieto J. The role of omental biopsy in endometrial cancer staging. Gynecol Surg. 2009;6:251–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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;60:2035–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lurain JR, Rice BL, Rademaker AW, Poggensee LE, Schink JC, Miller DS. Prognostic factors associated with recurrence in clinical stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:63–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine neoplasms. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Fort Washington (PA): National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc., 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minakami H, Hiramatsu Y, Koresawa M, et al. Guidelines for obstetrical practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG) 2011 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37:1174–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruvalcaba-Limon E, Cantu-de-Leon D, Leon-Rodriguez E, et al. The first Mexican consensus of endometrial cancer. Grupo de Investigacion en Cancer de Ovario y Tumores Ginecologicos de Mexico [in Spanish]. Rev Invest Clin. 2010;62:583, 85–605.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Practice guideline for gynecologic cancer. In: Park SY (ed). Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowdy SC, Mariani A, Lurain JR. Uterine cancer. In: Berek JS (ed). Berek and Novak’s Gynecology. Philadelpia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujiwara H, Saga Y, Takahashi K, et al. Omental metastases in clinical stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:165–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dilek S, Dilek U, Dede M, Deveci MS, Yenen MC. The role of omentectomy and appendectomy during the surgical staging of clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:795–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metindir J, Dilek GB. The role of omentectomy during the surgical staging in patients with clinical stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008;134:1067–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen SS, Spiegel G. Stage I endometrial carcinoma Role of omental biopsy and omentectomy. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:627–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gehrig PA, Van Le L, Fowler WC Jr. The role of omentectomy during the surgical staging of uterine serous carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:212–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marino BD, Burke TW, Tornos C, et al. Staging laparotomy for endometrial carcinoma: assessment of peritoneal spread. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;56:34–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nieto JJ, Gornall R, Toms E, Clarkson S, Hogston P, Woolas RP. Influence of omental biopsy on adjuvant treatment field in clinical stage I endometrial carcinoma. BJOG. 2002;109:576–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saygili U, Kavaz S, Altunyurt S, Uslu T, Koyuncuoglu M, Erten O. Omentectomy, peritoneal biopsy and appendectomy in patients with clinical stage I endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11:471–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang W, Bai P, Wu L. The clinical value of surgical-pathological staging for endometrial carcinoma [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2001;36:479–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ren YL, Wang HY, Shan BE, Ping B, Shi DR. Clinical implications of positive peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2011;46:595–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Usubütün A, Ozseker HS, Himmetoglu C, Balci S, Ayhan A. Omentectomy for gynecologic cancer: how much sampling is adequate for microscopic examination? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1578–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larson DM, Connor GP, Broste SK, Krawisz BR, Johnson KK. Prognostic significance of gross myometrial invasion with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:394–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee TS, Kim JW, Kim SH, et al. Surgical practice patterns in endometrial cancer: results of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group survey. J Gynecol Oncol. 2009;20:107–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kong A, Johnson N, Kitchener HC, Lawrie TA. Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD003916.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gynecologic Oncology Group. Pelvic radiation therapy or vaginal implant radiation therapy, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in treating patients with high-risk stage I or stage II endometrial cancer. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giuntoli RL 2nd, Gerardi MA, Yemelyanova AV, et al. Stage I noninvasive and minimally invasive uterine serous carcinoma: comprehensive staging associated with improved survival. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:273–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oosterling SJ, van der Bij GJ, Bogels M, et al. Insufficient ability of omental milky spots to prevent peritoneal tumor outgrowth supports omentectomy in minimal residual disease. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2006;55:1043–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Won Duk Joo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter E. Schwartz
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Rutherford
    • 1
  • Seok Ju Seong
    • 2
  • Junbeom Ku
    • 3
  • Hyun Park
    • 2
  • Sang Geun Jung
    • 2
  • Min Chul Choi
    • 2
  • Chan Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive SciencesYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCHA University School of MedicineSeongnamRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.College of Literature, Science, and the ArtsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations