I期子宫内膜癌淋巴脉管间隙浸润的高危因素分析及预测模型的构建
Analysis of High Risk Factors of Lymphatic Vascular Space Infiltration in Stage I Endometrial Carcinoma and Construction of Predictive Model
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2024.1441367, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 26  浏览: 36 
作者: 刘 菲, 杨兴升*:山东大学齐鲁医院妇产科,山东 济南
关键词: 子宫内膜癌淋巴脉管间隙浸润列线图Endometrial Cancer Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion Nomogram
摘要: 目的:探讨I期子宫内膜癌患者发生淋巴脉管间隙浸润(LVSI)的相关风险因素,同时构建I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的预测模型,用于术前评估LVSI的风险。方法:回顾性分析2019年1月至2022年12月就诊于山东大学齐鲁医院并行全面分期手术治疗的425例I期子宫内膜癌患者的临床资料,使用Logistic回归分析确定I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的独立危险因素,并以此作为预测因子使用R语言软件构建I期子宫内膜癌LVSI的风险预测模型,后使用ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics)曲线下面积AUC (Area Under the ROC)、校准曲线和决策曲线分析DCA (Decision Curve Analysis)来评估该预测模型的预测性能、校准度和临床收益。结果:425例I期子宫内膜癌患者中,LVSI阳性者118例(27.7%)。单因素分析显示年龄、合并高血压、绝经、CA125水平、病理类型、肌层浸润深度、组织学分级与I期子宫内膜癌发生淋巴血管间隙浸润显著相关(P < 0.05)。多因素分析显示肌层浸润深度(OR = 6.216, 95% CI: 3.300~11.709, P < 0.001),病理类型(OR = 3.816, 95% CI: 1.122~12.985, P = 0.032 < 0.05),组织学分级(OR = 4.032, 95% CI: 1.924~8.450, P < 0.001),CA125水平(OR = 2.762, 95% CI: 1.503~5.073, P < 0.001)是I期子宫内膜癌发生淋巴血管间隙浸润的独立危险因素。以此构建的列线图预测模型有良好的预测效能(AUC = 0.812)、符合度(平均绝对误差为0.017)和较好的临床收益。结论:术前CA125 ≥ 35 U/ml、病理分型为非子宫内膜样癌、组织学分级为G3和肌层浸润 ≥ 1/2是EC患者发生LVSI的独立危险因素;基于此建立的I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的风险预测模型具有良好的预测效能,可用于术前评估I期子宫内膜癌患者发生LVSI的风险。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the risk factors for lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) in patients with stage I endometrial carcinoma and create a predictive model for evaluating the risk of LVSI in stage I endometrial carcinoma before operation. Methods: The clinical data of 425 patients with stage I endometrial cancer who underwent comprehensive staging surgery in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from January 2019 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for LVSI in stage I endometrial cancer. Using these factors as predictors, a risk prediction model of LVSI in stage I endometrial cancer was constructed using R language, and then the ROC curve, the decision curve analysis and calibration curve were used to evaluate the predictive performance and conformity of the prediction model. Results: Among 425 patients with stage I endometrial cancer, 118 (27.7%) were LVSI positive. Univariate analysis showed that age, hypertension, menopause, CA125 level, pathological type, depth of myometrial invasion and histological grade were significantly correlated with LVI in stage I endometrial cancer (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that the depth of myometrial invasion (OR = 6.216, 95% CI: 3.300~11.709, P < 0.001), pathological type (OR = 3.816, 95% CI: 1.122~12.985, P = 0.032 < 0.05), histological grade (OR = 4.032, 95% CI: 1.924~8.450, P < 0.001), CA125 level (OR = 2.762, 95% CI: 1.503~5.073, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for LVI in stage I endometrial cancer. The nomogram prediction model constructed with those predictors had good prediction efficiency (AUC = 0.812), conformity (mean absolute error = 0.017) and clear clinical benefit. Conclusions: CA125 ≥ 35 U/ml, non-endometrioid carcinoma, histological grade G3 and myometrial invasion ≥ 1/2 are independent risk factors for LVSI in EC patients. The risk prediction model of LVSI in patients with stage I endometrial cancer has a good predictive efficiency, which can be used to evaluate the risk of LVSI in patients with early endometrial cancer before surgery.
文章引用:刘菲, 杨兴升. I期子宫内膜癌淋巴脉管间隙浸润的高危因素分析及预测模型的构建[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(4): 2874-2884. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2024.1441367

1. 引言

子宫内膜癌(Endometrial Cancer, EC)是女性第六大最常见的癌症,在2020年全球新增子宫内膜癌病例为41,700例 [1] 。女性一生中患子宫内膜癌的风险约为3%,诊断时的中位年龄为61岁。在过去的三十年间,子宫内膜癌的发病率呈上升趋势,总发病率提高了132% [2] 。由于子宫内膜癌的早期临床表现,如绝经后或阴道异常流血,大多数子宫内膜癌患者诊断时为局部病变(67%),20%的患者诊断为局部扩散,9%的患者诊断为远处转移。子宫内膜癌的5年总生存率(OS)为81.5%,诊断为局部病变的生存率较高,约为95%,若出现区域淋巴结扩散,则5年生存率降至约69.4%,出现远处转移的生存率仅为17.3% [3] 。已有研究证实LVSI是子宫内膜癌发生盆腔淋巴结转移的独立危险因素,LVSI阳性发生盆腔淋巴结转移的风险为25%~45% [4] 。Ulas SOLMAZ等人 [5] 回顾性分析了827例接受全面手术分期的子宫内膜癌患者的临床资料,发现LVSI阴性者的淋巴结转移率仅为0.6%,而LVSI阳性者高达48.9%,且LVSI是子宫内膜癌患者发生淋巴结转移的独立危险因素。FIRES试验中的患者接受前哨淋巴结活检后完善了双侧淋巴结切除,结果显示LVSI阳性患者的淋巴结阳性率高于LVSI阴性者(44.3% VS 6.3%) [6] 。LVSI状态与早期子宫内膜癌发生淋巴结转移密切相关,遗憾的是,目前没有能够在术前预测LVSI状态的标记物,大部分地区LVSI状态只能在子宫切除后由术后常规病理中明确LVSI [7] 。因此术前若能有一种方法能够预测评估患者LVSI状态,这可以帮助医生对患者是否需要淋巴结评估做出更准确的判断,为患者提供个性化诊疗,改善患者预后并减少手术带来的并发症。本研究的目的是探讨I期子宫内膜癌患者发生LVSI的相关风险因素,筛选出LVSI的独立危险因素,以此作为预测因子构建I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的预测模型,用于术前评估LVSI的风险,指导临床医生做出更精准的治疗方案的选择。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 研究对象

通过查阅电子资料,回顾性收集2019年1月至2022年12月就诊于山东大学齐鲁医院并行全面分期手术治疗的425例I期子宫内膜癌患者的临床资料,术后病理证实为LVSI阴性的患者307例,LVSI阳性118例。纳入标准:1) 所有患者需于我院行子宫内膜癌全面分期手术:全子宫切除 + 双侧输卵管/附件切除 + 盆腔淋巴结活检/清扫 ± 腹主动脉旁淋巴结活检/清扫术;2) 术后病理证实为子宫内膜癌,并按照国际妇产科联盟(FIGO) 2009年手术病理分期为I期;3) 所有患者术前均行经阴道超声(TVS)或增强MRI、诊断性刮宫或宫腔镜,且术前影像学检查得到的肌层浸润深度、术前病理类型及分级与术后常规病理结果一致;4) 所有患者既往无其他恶性肿瘤病史;5) 术前未接受放化疗、内分泌治疗或中医综合治疗等;6) 临床资料完整。排除标准:1) 既往有其他恶性肿瘤病史;2) 术前接受放化疗、内分泌治疗或中医综合治疗等其他治疗;3) 术前影像学结果及术前病理结果与术后常规病理结果不一致;4) 因良性疾病切除子宫而意外发现子宫内膜癌的患者,无论是否补充分期手术;5) 临床资料不完整。

2.2. 资料收集

回顾性收集符合条件的I期子宫内膜癌患者共425例,收集患者的一般临床资料及手术病理资料。一般临床资料包括:年龄、身体质量指数(BMI)、初潮年龄、孕产次;是否绝经;是否合并疾病(高血压、糖尿病、子宫腺肌病、子宫肌瘤);血液学指标:白细胞计数(WBC)、中性粒细胞计数(NE)、淋巴细胞计数(LYM)、血小板计数(PLT)、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)、红细胞计数(RBC)与血红蛋白(HGB);手术病理资料:术前CA125水平、术前影像学浸润深度;术前病理结果(病理类型及组织学分级);手术方式;术后常规病理(病理类型、组织学分级、肌层浸润深度、LVSI状态)。

2.3. 统计学方法

使用SPSS27.0进行数据分析。对符合正态分布的定量资料以均数 ± 标准差表示,用两样本独立t检验进行组间比较;符合偏态分布的定量资料以中位数及四分位间距表示,用秩和检验进行组间比较;分类资料以病例数[n (%)]表示,采用卡方检验或Fisher精确概率法进行比较。将通过以上单因素分析得出的具有统计学意义的指标纳入二元Logistic多因素回归分析,得出I期子宫内膜癌LVSI阳性的独立危险因素。运用R语言软件(R4.2.3)构建预测I期子宫内膜癌LVSI阳性发生概率的列线图模型。采用ROC曲线下面积AUC评估该模型预测性能,用校准曲线判断其预测符合度,决策曲线分析评价模型临床收益。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 单因素分析结果

本研究共纳入425例子宫内膜癌患者,术后病理显示LVSI阴性者307例,阴性率为72.2%,阳性者118例,阳性率为27.8%。单因素分析结果显示年龄、合并高血压、绝经、CA125水平、病理类型、肌层浸润深度、组织学分级与I期子宫内膜癌发生淋巴血管间隙浸润显著相关(P < 0.05),见表1

Table 1. Univariate analysis of 425 patients with stage I endometrial cancer

表1. 425例I期子宫内膜癌患者的单因素分析

注:*P < 0.05,差异具有统计学意义。

3.2. 多因素分析结果

将单因素分析筛选出的有统计意义的指标纳入Logistic回归进行多因素分析,结果显示肌层浸润深度(OR = 6.216, 95% CI: 3.300~11.709, P < 0.001),病理类型(OR = 3.816, 95% CI: 1.122~12.985, P = 0.032 < 0.05),组织学分级(OR = 4.032, 95% CI: 1.924~8.450, P < 0.001),CA125水平(OR = 2.762, 95% CI: 1.503~5.073, P < 0.001)是I期子宫内膜癌发生淋巴血管间隙浸润的独立危险因素,见表2

Table 2. Binary Logistic regression analysis of independent risk factors for LVSI positive

表2. LVSI阳性独立危险因素的二元Logistic回归分析

注:*P < 0.05,差异具有统计学意义。

3.3. I期子宫内膜癌LVSI风险的预测模型的建立与验证

利用多因素分析得到的四个独立危险因素(肌层浸润深度、病理类型、组织学类型及CA-125)建立预测I期子宫内膜癌发生脉管间隙浸润风险的列线图模型(如图1)。ROC曲线下面积AUC为0.812 (见图2),说明此预测模型具有较高的准确性。经过1000次Bootstrap自抽样内部验证后,得到校准曲线(见图3)提示模型外部值(实际观测值)与理想值(模型预测值)之间符合度的平均绝对误差为0.017,说明该列线图的符合度好,有较强的预测能力。决策曲线分析DCA (见图4)提示本模型的净收益高于参考线所覆盖的阈值概率范围较广,验证了预测模型具有良好的临床效能。

Figure 1. Nomogram for predicting LVSI positive in patients with stage I endometrial cancer

图1. 预测I期子宫内膜癌患者发生LVSI阳性的列线图

Figure 2. ROC curve of LVSI positive prediction model

图2. LVSI阳性预测模型的ROC曲线

Figure 3. Calibration curve of LVSI positive prediction model

图3. LVSI阳性预测模型的校准曲线

Figure 4. DCA curve of LVSI positive prediction model

图4. LVSI阳性预测模型的DCA曲线

4. 讨论

根据流行病学监测及相关研究显示,约80%的子宫内膜癌患者诊断时为I期阶段,总体5年生存率接近95% [3] 。淋巴结评估是预测子宫内膜癌患者预后的重要工具,目前对子宫内膜癌患者是否常规行淋巴结评估尚有争议。Jason D等人 [8] 进行的多中心研究纳入了151,089例子宫内膜癌患者,发现淋巴结切除与死亡率降低相关(HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53~1.06)。同时还有学者认为对术前评估为早期的子宫内膜癌患者行淋巴结清扫术可获得更准确的分期,帮助临床医生对患者的预后做出更精确的判断。虽有多个回顾性研究证明淋巴结切除对子宫内膜癌患者的预后是有益的 [9] [10] [11] ,但是对于早期子宫内膜癌患者,有部分大规模的临床对照试验表明,传统的淋巴结清扫术并不能获得明显的生存获益 [12] ,并且可能会延长手术时间,增加术中出血及输血的风险,导致深静脉血栓形成、淋巴囊肿形成和下肢淋巴水肿等并发症风险升高。Benedetti等人 [13] 进行的一项纳入514例患者的随机对照试验发现,术前评估为I期的子宫内膜癌患者术中行系统性盆腔淋巴结清扫的5年DFS及5年OS与未行淋巴结清扫患者的5年DFS及5年OS之间没有明显的差异(淋巴结清扫组为81.0%和85.9%;非淋巴结清扫组为81.7%和90.0%),但是该研究发现行淋巴结清扫术的患者发生手术并发症的风险升高,如淋巴囊肿、深部静脉血栓、肺栓塞等。ASTEC研究 [14] 发现在早期子宫内膜癌患者中,盆腔淋巴结清扫术并不能使患者在总生存率和无病生存率方面获益,提出盆腔淋巴结清扫术可不作为常规手术治疗方式。为了达到更好的预后,我们应识别出能从淋巴结切除术中获得潜在治疗效果的患者。虽然已有淋巴结转移相关预测模型相继问世,但预测因子中常包含LVSI (仅从术后病理得知),且所占比例较高。Saketh R. Guntupalli等人发现LVSI阴性对淋巴结转移的阴性预测值为95%,建议LVSI阴性的患者可不进行淋巴结评估 [7] 。Ulas SOLMAZ等人回顾性分析了827例接受手术分期的子宫内膜癌患者的临床资料,发现LVSI阴性者仅有0.6%发生淋巴结转移,而LVSI阳性者高达48.9%,且LVSI是子宫内膜癌患者发生淋巴结转移的独立危险因素 [5] 。2016年欧洲妇科肿瘤学会(ESGO)指南建议,即使没有其他病理学危险因素,仅LVSI阳性者也应行淋巴结评估 [15] 。

Sang II Kim等人研究发现,组织学分级、肿瘤大小、肌层浸润深度、CA-125、纤维蛋白原及肿瘤累及子宫下段等可用来预测LVSI的发生 [16] [17] [18] [19] 。在我们的研究中,通过多因素分析发现肌层浸润深度、病理类型、组织学分级及CA-125水平是I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的独立危险因素,其OR值分别为6.216 (3.300~11.709)、3.816 (1.122~12.985)、4.032 (1.924~8.450)、2.762 (1.503~5.073),这与既往研究报道基本相符。Laufer J等人发现肿瘤直径 > 2 cm与LVSI显著相关,建议肿瘤直径 > 2 cm的I期子宫内膜癌患者进行全面分期手术 [20] 。Zhou等人发现血清CA-125 ≥ 21.2 U/ml及纤维蛋白原 ≥ 2.58 mg/dL可用于预测LVSI状态,作者认为,测定血浆纤维蛋白原和CA 125水平可能有助于获得更精确的子宫内膜癌患者LVSI个体风险谱 [19] 。本研究中,CA-125 ≥ 35 U/ml的患者中LVSI阳性者占46.3%,这明显高于CA-125 < 35 U/ml者(P < 0.001),并且CA-125是LVSI阳性的独立危险因素(OR = 2.762, 95% CI: 1.503~5.073, P < 0.001)。磁共振成像(MRI)是确定肿瘤大小、位置、浸润深度及淋巴结肿大最准确的成像技术 [21] 。在对212例患者的回顾性分析中,Ytre-Hauge等人表明肿瘤大小在MRI成像及病理学结果之间的类内相关系数(Intra-Class Coefficient Correlation, ICC)为0.85 [22] ,Bourgioti等人得出的ICC为0.997 (95% CI 0.995~0.9888, P < 0.001) [23] 。一项荟萃分析发现深肌层浸润与子宫内膜癌患者的LVSI阳性、淋巴结转移及更差的总体生存率显著相关。Jingya Chen等人也发现MRI显示为深肌层浸润的患者发生LVSI的可能性更高,是LVSI的独立危险因素(OR = 2.32; 95% CI 1.13~4.87; P = 0.02) [24] 。多项研究报道了LVSI在EC预后中的重要作用 [25] [26] [27] 。LVSI阳性患者比LVSI阴性患者有更高的淋巴结转移率、更差的总体生存率及更高的复发率 [28] 。有研究按照三级评分系统评估LVSI状态(缺失、局灶性、弥漫性),其发现与无或局灶性LVSI相比,弥漫性LVSI与深肌层浸润、II型子宫内膜癌、分化差及肿瘤直径 > 2 cm密切相关,且淋巴结转移率从无LVSI的5%上升到局灶LVSI患者的15%和弥漫性LVSI患者的33%,弥漫性LVSI是淋巴结转移的最强独立危险因素 [29] 。

综上可知,LVSI是术前评估患者是否需行淋巴结评估的重要因素,且是I期子宫内膜癌的不良预后因素,但临床医生术前无法得知LVSI状态,LVSI仅能从术后病理结果中得知。Jorge及Sari等一些学者认为,术中快速病理明确LVSI状态有助于手术医生针对内膜癌患者是否需行淋巴结切除做出更加个体化的决定 [30] [31] 。在快速冰冻切片制片过程中,可能会因为取材不够、肿瘤细胞人为进入脉管间隙或组织共存的炎症等因素影响病理医生对LVSI的判断 [32] 。Pollom等人认为,LVSI往往是局灶性的,术中冰冻病理需进行选择性取样,评估的肿瘤样本数量有限,这导致精确的判断LVSI状态是极其困难的 [33] 。在腹腔镜手术过程中,可能因为使用举宫器或手术操作等导致肿瘤组织被动运输到脉管通道中形成伪影,这种情况易与LVSI相混淆 [34] 。术中快速病理与术后常规病理LVSI一致性在不同的研究中不甚相同(68.3%~92.4%) [35] [36] 。

近几年,列线图预测模型作为一种方便、有益的工具在癌症领域得到越来越多的应用 [37] 。因此本研究纳入术前肌层浸润深度、病理学类型、组织学分级及CA-125水平四个自变量作为预测因子来构建术前预测I期子宫内膜癌发生LVSI的列线图模型,以上四个变量均可在术前获得。在临床工作中,临床医生可将四个预测因子所对应的分值相加,即可得到I期子宫内膜癌患者发生LVSI的概率。这有助于临床医生在术前制定更加合理的手术方案,对I期EC患者能否从淋巴结切除术中获益做出更加准确的判断。本研究ROC曲线下面积AUC为0.812,说明此预测模型具有较高的准确性。经过1000次Bootstrap自抽样内部验证后,得到校准曲线提示模型外部值(实际观测值)与理想值(模型预测值)之间符合度的平均绝对误差为0.017,说明该列线图的符合度好,有较强的预测能力。决策曲线分析本模型的净收益高于参考线所覆盖的阈值概率范围较广,验证了预测模型具有良好的临床效能。

综上所述,CA-125 ≥ 35 U/ml、深肌层浸润、非子宫内膜样腺癌及低分化组织学分级提示该I期子宫内膜癌患者发生LVSI的风险升高,这需引起临床医生的重视。本研究建立的I期子宫内膜癌LVSI风险预测模型,准确度高,预测性好,简单直观,易于临床应用,可帮助临床医生在术前或术中判断患者LVSI状态,以做出更准确的手术决策,使患者得到更多的获益。

本研究的局限性:1) 本研究为单中心回顾性研究,容易产生选择偏倚及信息偏倚;2) 本研究构建的列线图预测模型采用内部验证,缺乏外部验证;3) 有文献报道肿瘤大小是子宫内膜癌患者LVSI的独立危险因素,但本研究未将其纳入分析,这可能会影响该预测模型的准确性;4) 该预测模型的预测因子均来自术前检查,所获得的结果均不如术后病理结果准确,这可能会影响该预测模型的准确性。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Crosbie, E.J., Kitson, S.J., Mcalpine, J.N., et al. (2022) Endometrial Cancer. Lancet, 399, 1412-1428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00323-3
[3] Tung, H.J., Huang, H.J. and Lai, C.H. (2022) Adjuvant and Post-Surgical Treatment in Endometrial Cancer. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 78, 52-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.06.002
[4] Hahn, H., Lee, I., Kim, T., et al. (2013) Lymphovascular Space Invasion Is Highly Associated with Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence in Endometrial Cancer. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 53, 293-297.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12089
[5] Solmaz, U., Mat, E., Dereli, M., et al. (2015) Lymphovascular Space Invasion and Cervical Stromal Invasion Are Independent Risk Factors for Nodal Metastasis in Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 55, 81-86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12321
[6] Rossi, E.C., Kowalski, L.D., Scalici, J., et al. (2017) A Comparison of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy to Lymphadenectomy for Endometrial Cancer Staging (FIRES Trial): A Multicentre, Prospective, Cohort Study. Lancet Oncology, 18, 384-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30068-2
[7] Guntupalli, S.R., Zighelboim, I., Kizer, N.T., et al. (2012) Lymphovascular Space Invasion Is an Independent Risk Factor for Nodal Disease and Poor Outcomes in Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 124, 31-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.017
[8] Wright, J.D., Huang, Y., Burke, W.M., et al. (2016) Influence of Lymphadenectomy on Survival for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 127, 109-118.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001194
[9] Kilgore, L.C., Partridge, E.E., Alvarez, R.D., et al. (1995) Adenocarcinoma of the Endometrium: Survival Comparisons of Patients with and without Pelvic Node Sampling. Gynecologic Oncology, 56, 29-33.
https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1995.1005
[10] Cragun, J.M., Havrilesky, L.J., Calingaert, B., et al. (2005) Retrospective Analysis of Selective Lymphadenectomy in Apparent Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 3668-3675.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.144
[11] Creasman, W.T., Morrow, C.P., Bundy, B.N., et al. (1987) Surgical Pathologic Spread Patterns of Endometrial Cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer, 60, 2035-2041.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19901015)60:8 <2035::AID-CNCR2820601515>3.0.CO;2-8
[12] Siegenthaler, F., Epstein, E., Büchi, C.A., et al. (2023) Prognostic Value of Lymphovascular Space Invasion According to the Molecular Subgroups in Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 33, 1702-1707.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-004606
[13] Benedetti, P.P., Basile, S., Maneschi, F., et al. (2008) Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy vs. No Lymphadenectomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Carcinoma: Randomized Clinical Trial. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 100, 1707-1716.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn397
[14] Kitchener, H., Swart, A.M., Qian, Q., et al. (2009) Efficacy of Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Endometrial Cancer (MRC ASTEC Trial): A Randomised Study. Lancet, 373, 125-136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61766-3
[15] Colombo, N., Creutzberg, C., Amant, F., et al. (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Annals of Oncology, 27, 16-41.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv484
[16] Oliver-Perez, M.R., Magrina, J., Villalain-Gonzalez, C., et al. (2021) Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial Carcinoma: Tumor Size and Location Matter. Surgical Oncology, 37, Article ID: 101541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101541
[17] Meydanli, M.M., Aslan, K., Oz, M., et al. (2020) Is It Possible to Develop a Prediction Model for Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer? International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 39, 213-220.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000596
[18] Kim, S.I., Yoon, J.H., Lee, S.J., et al. (2021) Prediction of Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Patients with Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 18, 2828-2834.
https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.60718
[19] Zhou, X., Wang, H. and Wang, X. (2017) Preoperative CA125 and Fibrinogen in Patients with Endometrial Cancer: A Risk Model for Predicting Lymphovascular Space Invasion. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 28, e11.
https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e11
[20] Laufer, J., Scasso, S., Papadia, A., et al. (2013) Association between Tumor Diameter and Lymphovascular Space Invasion among Women with Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 123, 142-145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.05.012
[21] Nougaret, S., Horta, M., Sala, E., et al. (2019) Endometrial Cancer MRI Staging: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. European Radiology, 29, 792-805.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y
[22] Ytre-Hauge, S., Husby, J.A., Magnussen, I.J., et al. (2015) Preoperative Tumor Size at MRI Predicts Deep Myometrial Invasion, Lymph Node Metastases, and Patient Outcome in Endometrial Carcinomas. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 25, 459-466.
https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000367
[23] Bourgioti, C., Chatoupis, K., Tzavara, C., et al. (2016) Predictive Ability of Maximal Tumor Diameter on MRI for High-Risk Endometrial Cancer. Abdominal Radiology, 41, 2484-2495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0927-0
[24] Chen, J., Wang, X., Lv, H., et al. (2023) Development and External Validation of a Clinical-Radiomics Nomogram for Preoperative Prediction of LVSI Status in Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 149, 13943-13953.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05044-y
[25] Raffone, A., Travaglino, A., Raimondo, D., et al. (2022) Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial Carcinoma: A Prognostic Factor Independent from Molecular Signature. Gynecologic Oncology, 165, 192-197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.013
[26] Peters, E.E.M., Léon-Castillo, A., Hogdall, E., et al. (2022) Substantial Lymphovascular Space Invasion Is an Adverse Prognostic Factor in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 41, 227-234.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000805
[27] Tortorella, L., Restaino, S., Zannoni, G.F., et al. (2021) Substantial Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion (LVSI) as Predictor of Distant Relapse and Poor Prognosis in Low-Risk Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, 32, e11.
https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e11
[28] Stålberg, K., Bjurberg, M., Borgfeldt, C., et al. (2019) Lymphovascular Space Invasion as a Predictive Factor for Lymph Node Metastases and Survival in Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer—A Swedish Gynecologic Cancer Group (SweGCG) Study. Acta Oncologica, 58, 1628-1633.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1643036
[29] Restaino, S., Tortorella, L., Dinoi, G., et al. (2021) Semiquantitative Evaluation of Lymph-Vascular Space Invasion in Patients Affected by Endometrial Cancer: Prognostic and Clinical Implications. European Journal of Cancer, 142, 29-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.10.011
[30] Jorge, S., Hou, J.Y., Tergas, A.I., et al. (2016) Magnitude of Risk for Nodal Metastasis Associated with Lymphvascular Space Invasion for Endometrial Cancer. Gynecologic Oncology, 140, 387-393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.01.002
[31] Sari, M.E., Yalcin, I., Sahin, H., et al. (2017) Risk Factors for Paraaortic Lymph Node Metastasis in Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 937-944.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-017-1139-5
[32] O’Brien, D.J., Flannelly, G., Mooney, E.E. and Foley, M. (2009) Lymphovascular Space Involvement in Early Stage Well-Differentiated Endometrial Cancer Is Associated with Increased Mortality. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 116, 991-994.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02162.x
[33] Pollom, E.L., Conklin, C.M., Von Eyben, R., et al. (2016) Nomogram to Predict Risk of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients with Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 35, 395-401.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000246
[34] Folkins, A.K., Nevadunsky, N.S., Saleemuddin, A., et al. (2010) Evaluation of Vascular Space Involvement in Endometrial Adenocarcinomas: Laparoscopic vs Abdominal Hysterectomies. Modern Pathology, 23, 1073-1079.
https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2010.91
[35] Kumar, S., Bandyopadhyay, S., Semaan, A., et al. (2011) The Role of Frozen Section in Surgical Staging of Low Risk Endometrial Cancer. PLOS ONE, 6, e21912.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021912
[36] Karabagli, P., Ugras, S., Yilmaz, B.S. and Celik, C. (2015) The Evaluation of Reliability and Contribution of Frozen Section Pathology to Staging Endometrioid Adenocarcinomas. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 292, 391-397.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3621-5
[37] Chen, J., Li, L., Chen, T., et al. (2022) Predicting the Risk of Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis in People Living with HIV: Development and Validation of a Nomogram. BMC Infectious Diseases, 22, Article No. 388.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07368-5