Tesadüfen Tanı Konulan Endometrium Kanserinin Yönetimi: Tek Merkez Bir Deneyimi

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 2, 272 - 278, 27.06.2025

Celal Akdemir , Mücahit Furkan Balcı , Serkan Karaoğlu , Enise Şeker , Gülin Özuyar Şimşek , Denizhan Bayramoğlu , Muzaffer Sancı

https://doi.org/10.35440/hutfd.1676363

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, benign nedenlerle histerektomi uygulanan hastalarda tesadüfi olarak tanı alan en-dometrium kanserli olguların klinik özelliklerini ve tedavi yöntemlerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Materyal ve Metod: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, 15 Ekim 2023 – 15 Ekim 2024 tarihleri arasında benign endikasyonlarla histerektomi sonrası tesadüfen endometrium kanseri tanısı alarak jinekolojik onkoloji kliniğimize yönlendirilen hastaların verileri incelenmiştir. Klinik, patolojik ve cerrahi veriler hastane kayıtlarından elde edilmiş; tanımlayıcı istatistikler ile karşılaştırmalı analizler SPSS 29 programı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya toplam 57 hasta dâhil edildi. Ortalama yaş 53,9 ± 8,2 yıl olup, hastaların %57,9’u postmenopozal dönemdeydi. En sık rastlanan histolojik alt tip %94,7 oranıyla endometrioid tip idi ve olguların %86,0’ında yüzeyel myometriyal invazyon mevcuttu. Preoperatif endometrial örnekleme hastaların %28,1’inde yapılmamıştı. Hastaların %28,1’ine tamamlayıcı cerrahi müdahale planlanırken, %71,9’u konservatif olarak yakın takip ile yönetildi. Patoloji blok revizyonu, jinekolojik onkoloji alanın-da deneyimi olmayan merkezlerde değerlendirilen 15 hastada, tanısal doğruluğu sağlamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Uzman patoloji incelemesi sonucunda bu hastaların 8’inde (%53,3) tanıda değişiklik saptanmıştır. Grade 2–3 tümörlerde derin invazyon, lenvovasküler alan invazyonu ve cerrahi gereksini-mi anlamlı olarak daha yüksek bulundu (p<0,05).
Sonuç: Tesadüfen tanı konulan endometrium kanseri olgularında multidisipliner ve risk temelli bir yaklaşım gereklidir. Bu çalışma, özellikle jinekolojik onkoloji deneyimi olmayan merkezlerde raporlanan olgular için yapılan patoloji blok revizyonunun, tedavi kararlarını yönlendirmede önemli katkı sağladığı-nı göstermektedir. Düşük riskli hastalarda konservatif takip güvenli bir seçenek olabilirken, yüksek riskli olgularda zamanında tamamlayıcı cerrahi ve adjuvan tedavi uygulamaları hayati önemdedir.

Keywords

Histerektomi , Endometrial Kanser , İnsidental , Takip , Yönetim

Management of Incidentally Diagnosed Endometrial Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical features and management strategies of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer incidentally following hysterectomy performed for benign indications.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study collected data from patients referred to our gynecologic oncology clinic between 15 October 2023 and 15 October 2024, following an incidental diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It should be noted that all patients had previously undergone hysterectomy for non-malignant indications. Clinical, pathological, and surgical data were retrieved from institutional records. Descriptive statistics and comparative analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.
Results: The study population comprised a total of 57 patients. The mean age was 53.9 ± 8.2 years, and 57.9% were postmenopausal. The most prevalent histological subtype was endometrioid (94.7%), and 86.0% of tumours exhibited superficial myometrial invasion. Preoperative endometrial sampling was absent in 28.1% of cases. Frozen section analysis was not requested intraoperatively in 26.3% of cases. Surgical re-intervention was planned in 28.1% of patients, while 71.9% were managed conservatively with close follow-up. Block revision of pathology slides resulted in changes to diagnoses in over half of the reviewed cases. Furthermore, a statistically significant association was identified between Grade 2–3 tumours and higher rates of deep invasion, LVSI, and the necessity for further surgery (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Incidentally diagnosed endometrial cancer poses significant clinical challenges, particularly in determining optimal staging and adjuvant treatment. A multidisciplinary and individualised approach is crucial. The revision of pathology reports by an expert pathologist in the field of gynecology, in conjunction with risk-based decision-making processes, is of paramount importance in the enhancement of outcomes. The primary objective of management should be to avoid overtreatment in low-risk patients and to provide adequate intervention in high-risk cases.

Keywords

Hysterectomy , Endometrial Cancer , Incidental , Follow-Up , Management

References

• 1. Uterine Cancer — Cancer Stat Facts. Accessed March 8, 2025. Available from: : https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html
• 2. Thomas V, Thomas A, Sebastian A, Chandy R, Peedicayil A. Inadequately Staged Endometrial Cancer: a Clinical Dilemma. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jun;9(2):166-170. doi: 10.1007/s13193-017-0685-7.
• 3. Mahnert N, Morgan D, Campbell D, Johnston C, As-Sanie S. Unexpected gynecologic malignancy diagnosed after hyster-ectomy performed for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;125(2):397-405. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000642.
• 4. Parsons LHP, Pedersen R, Richardson DL, Kho KA. The preva-lence of occult endometrial cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Apr;223:108-112. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.02.017.
• 5. Di Spiezio Sardo A, De Angelis MC, Della Corte L, Carugno J, Zizolfi B, Guadagno E, et al. Should endometrial biopsy under direct hysteroscopic visualization using the grasp technique become the new gold standard for the preoperative evalua-tion of the patient with endometrial cancer? Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Aug;158(2):347-353. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.012.
• 6. Quintana-Bertó R, Padilla-Iserte P, Gil-Moreno A, Oliver-Pérez R, Coronado PJ, Martín-Salamanca MB,et al. Oncological safety of hysteroscopy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022 Nov 7;32(11):1395-1401. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003586.
• 7. Gotoh O, Sugiyama Y, Tonooka A, Kosugi M, Kitaura S, Minegishi R, et al. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in pre-cursor lesions of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma. J Pathol. 2024 Jul;263(3):275-287. doi: 10.1002/path.6278.
• 8. Travaglino A, Raffone A, Saccone G, Mollo A, De Placido G, Insabato L, et al. Endometrial hyperplasia and the risk of coex-istent cancer: WHO versus EIN criteria. Histopathology. 2019 Apr;74(5):676-687. doi: 10.1111/his.13776. Epub 2019 Feb 10. PMID: 30347477.
• 9. Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the manage-ment of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230. Epub 2020 Dec 18. PMID: 33397713.
• 10. Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, González-Martín A, Ledermann J,et al.; ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Endometrial Consen-sus Conference Working Group. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):16-41. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv484. Epub 2015 Dec 2. Erratum in: Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv167-iv168. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx258. PMID: 26634381.
• 11. Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Thomassin-Naggara I, Kido A, et al. Endometrial Cancer MRI staging: Updated Guide-lines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Ra-diol. 2019 Feb;29(2):792-805. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y.
• 12. Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Costa J, Tabor A, et al. MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative stag-ing of endometrial cancer - a multicenter prospective com-parative study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Feb;128(2):300-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.025.
• 13. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Hagiwara S, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Performance of FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent endometrial cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2008 Feb;22(2):103-9. doi: 10.1007/s12149-007-0087-y. Epub 2008 Mar 3. PMID: 18311534.
• 14. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008 May 15;453(7193):314-21. doi: 10.1038/nature07039. PMID: 18480812.
• 15. Suidan RS, Sun CC, Cantor SB, Mariani A, Soliman PT, Westin SN, et al. Three Lymphadenectomy Strategies in Low-Risk En-dometrial Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;132(1):52-58. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002677.
• 16. Bourgin C, Saidani M, Poupon C, Cauchois A, Foucher F, Leveque J, et al. Endometrial cancer in elderly women: Which disease, which surgical management? A systematic re-view of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;42(2):166-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.11.001.
• 17. Carlson LE, Zelinski E, Toivonen K, Flynn M, Qureshi M, Pied-alue KA, Grant R. Mind-Body Therapies in Cancer: What Is the Latest Evidence? Curr Oncol Rep. 2017 Aug 18;19(10):67. doi: 10.1007/s11912-017-0626-1.
• 18. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, Glober G, Beale EA, Kudelka AP. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: appli-cation to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-11. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302.