CLINICAL AND PARACLINICAL FEATURES OF PATIENTS WITH STAGE I AND STAGE II ENDOMETRIAL CANCER ACCORDING TO THE FIGO – 2009 CLASSIFICATION AT THE CENTRAL OBSTETRICS HOSPITAL
Main Article Content
Abstract
In order to examine the clinical and paraclinical features of patients with stage I and II endometrial cancer according to the FIGO – 2009 classification. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 267 endometrial cancer patients at the Central Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital. The study found that patients with FIGO stages I and II were primarily aged 50-59, with an average age of 56.4 ± 9.1 years. The prevalence of uterine aspiration history (12.7%) and hypertension (22.8%) were common risk factors. Vaginal bleeding led to the majority of patients' admission, followed by menorrhagia. FIGO – II had a higher prevalence of uterine enlargement (41.9%) than FIGO – I (18.2%), p = 0.002. The majority of FIGO – I and FIGO – II showed a mobile uterus and no malignant cells in the uterine mucosa. Patients with FIGO – I were predominantly normal (66.3%) during vaginal-cervical cell biopsy, while those with FIGO – II were mainly suspicious (54.4%), p = 0.036. The endometrium of patients with FIGO-II was significantly thicker than that of patients with FIGO – I (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Clinical and paraclinical features might be useful to identify early stage I or II based on FIGO classification, which facilitates the selection of prompt and efficient treatment approaches.
Article Details
Keywords
endometrial cancer, FIGO, Clinical features, Paraclinical features
References


2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3): 209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660


3. Creasman WT, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;83: 79-118. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(03)90116-0


4. Restaino S, Paglietti C, Arcieri M, et al. Management of Patients Diagnosed with Endometrial Cancer: Comparison of Guidelines. Cancers. 2023;15(4): 1091. doi:10.3390/ cancers15041091


5. Korczynski J, Jesionek-Kupnicka D, Gottwald L, Piekarski J. Comparison of FIGO 1989 and 2009 recommendations on staging of endometrial carcinoma: pathologic analysis and cervical status in 123 consecutive cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30(4): 328-334. doi:10.1097/PGP. 0b013e3182069c30


6. Haltia UM, Bützow R, Leminen A, Loukovaara M. FIGO 1988 versus 2009 staging for endometrial carcinoma: a comparative study on prediction of survival and stage distribution according to histologic subtype. J Gynecol Oncol. 2014;25(1):30. doi:10.3802/jgo.2014.25.1.30


7. Lewin SN. Revised FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 54(2): 215-218. doi:10.1097/GRF. 0b013e3182185baa


8. Werner HMJ, Trovik J, Marcickiewicz J, et al. Revision of FIGO surgical staging in 2009 for endometrial cancer validates to improve risk stratification. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(1):103-108. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.008


9. Gadducci A, Cosio S, Fabrini MG, Guerrieri ME, Greco C, Genazzani AR. Analysis of failures in patients with FIGO stage IIIc1-IIIc2 endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(1): 201-205.

10. Hutt S, Mihaies D, Karteris E, Michael A, Payne AM, Chatterjee J. Statistical Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer and Development of a Risk Prediction Model Using an Artificial Neural Network Algorithm. Cancers. 2021;13(15):3689. doi:10.3390/cancers13153689

