Skip to main content

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

Annals of Surgical Oncology volume 22, pages 3695–3700 (2015)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:103–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine neoplasms. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Fort Washington (PA): National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc., 2012.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Practice guideline for gynecologic cancer. In: Park SY (ed). Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology; 2010.

  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. 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen SS, Spiegel G. Stage I endometrial carcinoma Role of omental biopsy and omentectomy. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:627–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marino BD, Burke TW, Tornos C, et al. Staging laparotomy for endometrial carcinoma: assessment of peritoneal spread. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;56:34–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kong A, Johnson N, Kitchener HC, Lawrie TA. Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD003916.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Won Duk Joo MD, PhD, Peter E. Schwartz MD & Thomas J. Rutherford MD, PhD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea

    Won Duk Joo MD, PhD, Seok Ju Seong MD, PhD, Hyun Park MD, PhD, Sang Geun Jung MD, Min Chul Choi MD & Chan Lee MD, PhD

  3. College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Junbeom Ku

Authors
  1. Won Duk Joo MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter E. Schwartz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas J. Rutherford MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seok Ju Seong MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Junbeom Ku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hyun Park MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sang Geun Jung MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Min Chul Choi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chan Lee MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seok Ju Seong MD, PhD.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

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)

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)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joo, W.D., Schwartz, P.E., Rutherford, T.J. et al. Microscopic Omental Metastasis in Clinical Stage I Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 3695–3700 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4443-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4443-1

Keywords

  • Endometrial Cancer
  • Clinical Stage
  • Endometrioid Adenocarcinoma
  • Positive Cytology
  • Cochrane Library Database