You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Original research
Rationality of the FIGO2023 staging for early-stage endometrial cancer, compared with the FIGO2009 staging
  1. Aoxuan Zhu,
  2. Yangyang Dong,
  3. Xingchen Li,
  4. Yiqin Wang and
  5. Jianliu Wang
  1. Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jianliu Wang, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China; wangjianliu{at}pkuph.edu.cn

Abstract

Objective The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) released a new staging for endometrial cancer (EC), which revised the FIGO2009 staging to include histopathological and molecular features. The purpose of this study was to validate the prognostic accuracy of the new staging and discuss its clinical applicability.

Methods In this single-centre retrospective study, 540 patients with primary surgically treated early-stage EC were enrolled and staged according to FIGO2009/2023. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare for prognostic differentiation. Cox regression was used to identify potential prognostic indicators.

Results A total of 81 patients underwent staging shifts, all stage elevation. The prognosis difference between new stages I and II was more significant. The new staging was more predictive of death postoperatively. Lesion maximum diameter (LMD) was one of the independent risk factors associated with prognosis. Taking LMD=5.70 cm as the cut-off value could further differentiate patients with divergent prognoses within FIGO2023 stage IIC.

Conclusion FIGO2023 staging demonstrated greater prognostic accuracy. In addition, LMD may be another critical factor affecting prognosis.

  • Endometrial Neoplasms
  • Uterine Neoplasms
  • Gynecology

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets used during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/gocm-2024-000016

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • Many factors have been incorporated into the new staging system. Its prognostic accuracy and clinical applicability ought to be discussed.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • The new staging was more predictive of death postoperatively. Lesion size could further differentiate patients with divergent prognoses.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • This study provides a reference for clinical practice of new staging, while also suggesting that there are still shortcomings in the new staging.

    Introduction

    Endometrial cancer (EC) is a common malignant tumour of the female reproductive system,1 and its incidence has been growing globally in recent years.2 3 Since the release of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 staging, extensive research evidence has led to noteworthy headway in understanding EC’s histopathological and molecular features. At the same time, the FIGO2009 staging has gradually revealed its shortcomings in usage, including neglect of histological types, overly crude staging and poor prognostic accuracy, which cannot meet clinical needs. In 2023, the FIGO Women’s Cancer Committee formally released an updated staging system for EC,4 which is significantly different from the FIGO2009 staging. Based on the anatomical extent of the tumour, the FIGO2023 staging introduces non-anatomical parameters in stage I/II, including histological type, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and molecular staging. For stage III/IV, the staging was divided in more detail based on the anatomical and histological distribution of the tumour, such as distinguishing between intra/extrapelvic peritoneal metastases and lymph node ultrastaging. Another change is to categorise low-grade endometrioid carcinomas that meet specific criteria in patients with both uterine and ovarian involvement as stage IA3, which is considered to have a good overall prognosis. This comprehensive staging approach aims to reflect prognosis better and guide clinical decision-making.

    However, the prognostic accuracy of the new FIGO2023 staging system lacks validation, and its clinical applicability ought to be discussed. This study focuses on the stage shifts of early-stage EC (stage I/II) between the old and new staging, evaluates the predictive ability of the FIGO2023 staging for recurrence or death, and discusses the clinical impact of the updates.

    Methods

    Study population and data collection

    Inclusion criteria: consultation at the Gynecology Department, Peking University People’s Hospital (PKUPH), Beijing, China, from January 2006 to December 2016; EC diagnosed by surgical pathology; FIGO2009 stages I–II. Exclusion criteria: history of primary malignant tumours in systems other than the female reproductive system or the breast; treatment prior to surgery; loss to follow-up immediately after surgery.

    Baseline information about each patient was collected, including age, height, weight, pregnancy, delivery, comorbidities, family history of cancer and CA125. All included patients underwent total hysterectomy, bilateral adnexectomy, selective pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection and pelvic lavage. Pathological information, including Bokhman classification, histological grade, myometrial invasion, cervical stromal invasion, LVSI, peritoneal cytology, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), p53, Ki67 and lesion maximum diameter (LMD), was extracted from the original surgery pathology reports. Two independent gynaecological pathologists reviewed the pathology slides, and any disputes were submitted to an expert committee for final decision. A positive immunohistochemical result for ER, PR or p53 was defined as over 10% of tumour cells being moderately or strongly stained in one slide. The determination of the Ki67 index was based on the proportion of tumour cells showing positive staining.

    Follow-up and definitions

    All patients were followed up through the outpatient clinic or by phone after surgery. Information collected included patients’ symptoms, laboratory test results and postoperative adjuvant therapy. Recurrence and death from any cause during the follow-up were recorded. If any abnormality was detected during the follow-up, the patient was required to come to our centre for further testing, and the diagnosis of recurrence would be made if new lesions were found in pathology or were highly suggestive on imaging. Reasons for termination of follow-up included death from any cause, loss of contact and arrival at the final follow-up date (28 September 2021). Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time interval from the surgery date to death from any cause. Disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time interval from the surgery date to confirmation of EC recurrence.

    Statistical analysis

    Student’s t-test and χ2 test were used for comparing continuous and categorical variables, respectively. OS and DFS were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival analysis and the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify potential prognostic indicators, with HR and its 95% CI provided. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to show the efficiency of LMD for predicting death and recurrence. All statistical analyses were done using SPSS software (IBM Corp Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.25.0). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    Data screening and stage shifts

    All 687 patients were primarily surgically treated and diagnosed with EC by surgical pathology at the Gynecology Department of PKUPH from January 2006 to December 2016. We excluded patients who had a history of primary malignant tumours in systems other than the female reproductive system or the breast (n=9), who received treatment earlier than the surgery (n=21), who had been lost to follow-up immediately after the surgery (n=22) and who belonged to FIGO2009 stages III–IV (n=95). Finally, 540 patients were selected for further research (figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials diagram. EC, endometrial cancer; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; PKUPH, Peking University People's Hospital.

    The 540 patients were restaged according to the FIGO2023 staging. Due to data limitations, we failed to classify ‘substantial’ versus ‘focal’ LVSI according to ‘≥5 vessels involved’. Instead, we relied on the diagnosis strings given by pathologists, such as ‘massive’, ‘extensive’ and ‘numerous’ in the description of LVSI. The cases considered ‘substantial’ LVSI in this study were all of the aggressive histological type and shifted from FIGO2009 stage IA/IB to FIGO2023 stage IIC, resulting in 0 patients categorised as FIGO2023 stage IIB. There were no cases in this study that qualified as low-grade endometrioid carcinomas confined to the uterus and ovaries, and therefore, 0 patients were categorised as FIGO2023 stage IA3. The staging was not adjusted to IAmPOLEmut or IICmp53abn because the molecular typing of the cases was unknown.

    A total of 81 stage shifts occurred (figure 2), all of which were stage elevations, including IA–IC (n=9), IA–IIC (n=50) and IB–IIC (n=22). The main shifting trends: cases of FIGO2009 IA stage diverged into FIGO2023 stages IA, IC and IIC; cases of FIGO2009 IA, IB and II stages converged into FIGO2023 IIC stage. According to the FIGO2023 staging, more patients were categorised as stage II (7%→20.37%). As shown in the baseline characteristics (table 1), body mass index, para, breast cancer history, the expression of ER/PR/p53 and Bokhman classification showed significant differences among different substages of FIGO2023, but not of FIGO2009. However, peritoneal cytology showed significant differences among different substages of FIGO2009, but not of FIGO2023.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Stage shifts of cases after restaging according to FIGO2023 staging. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Baseline clinical and pathological characteristics of each FIGO2009/FIGO2023 substage (n=540)

    Comparing oncological outcomes of stage I/II under two staging systems

    The median follow-up time for all 540 patients was 75 months (ranging from 3 to 190 months). In total, there were 25 recurrences and 17 deaths (including 10 cancer-specific deaths). The difference of OS between new stages I and II was more significant (figure 3 and online supplemental table 1).

    Supplemental material

    In univariate analyses, age ≥60 years, histological grade G3, LVSI, negative ER, negative PR, positive p53, LMD and FIGO2023 stage II were associated with OS. Among them, the HR of FIGO2023 stage II relative to FIGO2023 stage I is 4.133, while the HR is 2.344 for FIGO2009. All the factors that demonstrated statistical significance above were incorporated into the multivariate analysis. The independent risk factors influencing OS were obtained to be age ≥60 years, negative ER and LMD. As for DFS, age ≥60 years, histological grade G3, negative ER, negative PR and LMD were incorporated into the multivariate analysis, and the independent risk factors were also age ≥60 years, negative ER and LMD (table 2).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS and DFS of old and new staging systems (n=540). OS (A) and DFS (B) in the study cohort according to FIGO2009 staging; OS (C) and DFS (D) in the study cohort according to FIGO2023 staging. DFS, disease-free survival; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; OS, overall survival.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of factors influencing OS/DFS (n=540)

    Comparing oncological outcomes of shifting subgroups at FIGO2009 stage IA and FIGO2023 stage IIC

    411 patients were enrolled in FIGO2009 stage IA, of which 352 remained in FIGO2023 stage IA, 9 shifted to FIGO2023 stage IC and 50 shifted to FIGO2023 stage IIC. 85 patients were enrolled in FIGO2023 stage IIC, with 13 from FIGO2009 stage II, 50 from FIGO2009 stage IA and 22 from FIGO2009 stage IB. The K-M curves of OS in different shifting subgroups of FIGO2009 stage IA tended to separate, whereas OS and DFS of FIGO2023 stage IIC tended to overlap (figure 4).

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Kaplan-Meier analysis of shifting subgroups of FIGO2009 stage IA cases and FIGO2023 stage IIC cases. OS (A) and DFS (B) of patients shifting from FIGO2009 stage IA to FIGO2023 stage IA, IC and IIC (n=411); OS (C) and DFS (D) of patients shifting from FIGO2009 stage IA, IB and II to FIGO2023 stage IIC (n=85). DFS, disease-free survival; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; OS, overall survival.

    For cases of FIGO2023 stage IIC, age ≥60 years and LMD were associated with OS in univariate analyses. LMD was the independent risk factor influencing OS, and also the only risk factor influencing DFS (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of factors influencing OS/DFS in FIGO2023 stage IIC (n=85)

    Association between prognosis and lesion size

    Lesion size was closely related to prognosis in all 540 patients and in 85 FIGO2023 stage IIC patients. Using LMD as a stratification factor, we compared the OS and DFS of FIGO2023 stage I/II patients at different cut-off values (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cm) (online supplemental table 2). The difference between OS/DFS was statistically significant when the cut-off value was 4/5/6 cm in FIGO2023 stage II patients, suggesting that the LMD may further indicate prognosis. The ROC curves showed that the LMD=5.70 cm was the optimal cut-off value for predicting death and recurrence (online supplemental figure 1). The cut-off value of LMD=5.70 cm successfully further distinguished the OS and DFS of FIGO2023 stage IIC patients (figure 5).

    Supplemental material

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS/DFS in FIGO2023 stage II cases with LMD=5.70 cm as the cut-off value. OS (A) and DFS (B) in FIGO2023 stage IIC patients with LMD=5.70 cm as the cut-off value. DFS, disease-free survival; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; LMD, lesion maximum diameter; OS, overall survival.

    Discussion

    Histopathology

    Histopathology is a central feature of the new staging system. Tumour histological type is a significant predictor of prognosis in EC.5 In our study cohort, the main factor contributing to elevated staging in patients with early-stage EC was the aggressive histological type. Patients with early-stage EC of an aggressive histological type will be classified as stage IC if there is no myometrial invasion and stage IIC if there is. These patients were previously classified as FIGO2009 stage IA/IB. As can be seen in figure 4, patients of IA–IIC migration had significantly worse OS/DFS compared with those of IA–IA, reflecting the rationale for adding histological type into the new staging, whereas the K-M curves failed to reflect a significant trend in patients of IA–IC due to the small number (n=9). The new staging also emphasises the importance of evaluating LVSI and adopts ‘substantial’ LVSI (≥5 vessels involved) defined by the WHO 2020 report.6 Absent or focal LVSI is associated with a better prognosis, whereas substantial LVSI is associated with a worse prognosis.7 In this study, due to data limitations, the determination of whether LVSI was ‘substantial’ relied on the pathologist’s diagnosis strings, which may have resulted in staging bias. The new staging requires pathologists to record LVSI accurately. However, the interpretation of LVSI is inherently tricky. Surgical manipulation, poor fixation, tumour necrosis and mesenchymal retraction may cause misinterpretation of LVSI.8 9 More rigorous definitions and more specific interpretation criteria are urgently needed. Meanwhile, the amount of vascular involvement used to define ‘substantial’ LVSI needs further discussion.10–12 Therefore, adding LVSI in the FIGO2023 staging, which has not yet matured in pathological diagnosis, may bring limitations in clinical application.

    Molecular typing

    The new staging recommends complete molecular typing of all. Using biopsy specimens is sufficient; repeating in hysterectomy specimens is unnecessary.13 Since the groundbreaking introduction of molecular typing of EC by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project in 2013,14 simplified alternatives to TCGA molecular typing have been used in clinical practice, and the prognostic value has been well documented.4 15–18 This study retrospectively included patients with no data on molecular typing, so there was no stage elevation due to p53abn and no stage reduction due to POLEmut, which is another limitation of this study. However, reporting molecular typing remains a severe challenge. Alternative immunohistochemistry markers are readily available, whereas POLE mutation analysis can be challenging for many centres. Differentiating pathogenic mutations from non-pathogenic mutations is another hurdle.19 It may be possible to skip POLE mutation analysis for histologically low-grade, low/intermediate-risk EC, but complete molecular typing can be highly advantageous for aggressive histological subtypes.15 When p53abn or MMRd are present, it is especially recommended undergoing POLE mutation analysis to avoid incorrect typing and overtreatment.20 21 Therefore, simpler and easier reporting protocols are needed to promote molecular typing globally.

    Lesion size

    In addition, our results suggest that LMD is also an important factor influencing the prognosis. The ROC curve analysis showed that 5.70 cm is the optimal cut-off value for predicting death and recurrence. Patients with different prognoses can be differentiated within FIGO2023 stage IIC when the cut-off value is 5.70 cm. Although neither of the FIGO 2009/2023 staging systems incorporates lesion size, several studies support the association of lesion size with prognosis. The Mayo criteria classify patients with endometrioid carcinoma, histological grades 1–2, myometrial infiltration <50%, tumour diameter ≤2 cm and no evidence of tumour outside of the uterine corpus as a low-risk group for those who do not require lymphadenectomy.22 Sozzi et al analysed data from 1166 patients and found that tumour size was an independent prognostic factor for local recurrence in low-risk EC and used the LMD ≥2.5 cm as the cut-off value for predicting local recurrence in patients with low-risk EC.23 Our centre conducted a study using the ultrasound results before hysteroscopy or curettage to determine the initial lesion size, then analysed its correlation with lymph node metastasis and recurrence in patients with EC. The study found that the initial lesion size ≥4.25 cm was significantly associated with the prognosis of EC.24 The staging system could also include the lesion size as a prognostic factor. However, the method and threshold for determining the lesion size still need to be discussed.

    This study has several limitations. Due to small number of cases and lack of data such as lymph node ultrastaging, we did not discuss stage III/IV. Lack of molecular typing data prevented staging adjustment. LVSI evaluation criteria inconsistent with WHO 2021 may have caused staging bias. Results may be flawed due to retrospective nature. Data from a single centre may limit generalisability to other countries/regions.

    In conclusion, compared with the traditional FIGO2009 staging based on tumour extent, the FIGO2023 staging incorporates complementary histopathological and molecular features to improve the prognostic value and help achieve precision medicine.25 26 However, the excessive changes and complicated factors of the new staging system pose challenges to clinicians, pathologists and epidemiologists, which may affect its global dissemination. A prudent discussion with current evidence and local medical resources is needed before adopting the new staging as an alternative to the old one.

    Supplemental material

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. The datasets used during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This study involves human participants and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of PKUPH (2016PHB054-01). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Chen W ,
      3. Zheng R ,
      4. Baade PD , et al
      . Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:115–32. doi:10.3322/caac.21338
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      2. Feng J ,
      3. Lin R ,
      4. Li H , et al
      . Global and regional trends in the incidence and mortality burden of endometrial cancer, 1990–2019: updated results from the Global Burden of Disease Study, 2019. Chin Med J (Engl) 2024;137:294–302. doi:10.1097/CM9.0000000000002841
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      2. Crosbie EJ ,
      3. Kitson SJ ,
      4. McAlpine JN , et al
      . Endometrial cancer. Lancet 2022;399:1412–28. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00323-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      2. Berek JS ,
      3. Matias-Guiu X ,
      4. Creutzberg C , et al
      . FIGO staging of endometrial cancer: 2023. J Gynecol Oncol 2023;34:e85. doi:10.3802/jgo.2023.34.e85
    5. ↵
      2. Barlin JN ,
      3. Soslow RA ,
      4. Lutz M , et al
      . Redefining stage I endometrial cancer: incorporating histology, a binary grading system, myometrial invasion, and lymph node assessment. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:1620–8. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182a5055e
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Classification of tumours editorial board. female genital tumours. Lyon, France: World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, 2020: 4.
    7. ↵
      2. Bosse T ,
      3. Peters EEM ,
      4. Creutzberg CL , et al
      . Substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) is a significant risk factor for recurrence in endometrial cancer--a pooled analysis of PORTEC 1 and 2 trials. Eur J Cancer 2015;51:1742–50. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Logani S ,
      3. Herdman AV ,
      4. Little JV , et al
      . Vascular "pseudo invasion" in laparoscopic hysterectomy specimens: a diagnostic pitfall. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:560–5. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31816098f0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      2. Zheng W
      . Molecular classification of endometrial cancer and the 2023 FIGO staging: exploring the challenges and opportunities for pathologists. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:4101. doi:10.3390/cancers15164101
    10. ↵
      2. Peters EEM ,
      3. León-Castillo A ,
      4. Smit VTHBM , et al
      . Defining substantial lymphovascular space invasion in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2022;41:220–6. doi:10.1097/PGP.0000000000000806
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      2. Abu-Rustum N ,
      3. Yashar C ,
      4. Arend R , et al
      . Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:181–209. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2023.0006
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      2. McCluggage WG ,
      3. Colgan T ,
      4. Duggan M , et al
      . Data set for reporting of endometrial Carcinomas: recommendations from the International collaboration on cancer reporting (ICCR) between United kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australasia. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2013;32:45–65. doi:10.1097/PGP.0b013e31825d808b
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Talhouk A ,
      3. Hoang LN ,
      4. McConechy MK , et al
      . Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma on diagnostic specimens is highly concordant with final hysterectomy: earlier prognostic information to guide treatment. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:46–53. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.07.090
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Kandoth C ,
      3. Schultz N ,
      4. Cherniack AD , et al
      . Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 2013;497:67–73. doi:10.1038/nature12113
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      2. Concin N ,
      3. Matias-Guiu X ,
      4. Vergote I , et al
      . ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31:12–39. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      2. Stelloo E ,
      3. Nout RA ,
      4. Osse EM , et al
      . Improved risk assessment by integrating molecular and clinicopathological factors in early-stage endometrial cancer-combined analysis of the PORTEC cohorts. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:4215–24. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2878
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      2. Wortman BG ,
      3. Creutzberg CL ,
      4. Putter H , et al
      . Ten-year results of the PORTEC-2 trial for high-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma: improving patient selection for adjuvant therapy. Br J Cancer 2018;119:1067–74. doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0310-8
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. León-Castillo A ,
      3. de Boer SM ,
      4. Powell ME , et al
      . Molecular classification of the PORTEC-3 trial for high-risk endometrial cancer: impact on prognosis and benefit from adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:3388–97. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00549
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. León-Castillo A ,
      3. Britton H ,
      4. McConechy MK , et al
      . Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma. J Pathol 2020;250:323–35. doi:10.1002/path.5372
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Vermij L ,
      3. Smit V ,
      4. Nout R , et al
      . Incorporation of molecular characteristics into endometrial cancer management. Histopathology 2020;76:52–63. doi:10.1111/his.14015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. León-Castillo A ,
      3. Gilvazquez E ,
      4. Nout R , et al
      . Clinicopathological and molecular characterisation of 'multiple-classifier' endometrial carcinomas. J Pathol 2020;250:312–22. doi:10.1002/path.5373
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. Mariani A ,
      3. Dowdy SC ,
      4. Keeney GL , et al
      . High-risk endometrial cancer subgroups: candidates for target-based adjuvant therapy. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:120–6. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.06.042
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      2. Sozzi G ,
      3. Uccella S ,
      4. Berretta R , et al
      . Tumor size, an additional risk factor of local recurrence in low-risk endometrial cancer: a large Multicentric retrospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:684–91. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000001223
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      2. Guo CM ,
      3. Dai YB ,
      4. Geng J , et al
      . Correlation between the primary tumor size of endometrial carcinoma and lymph node metastasis and recurrence. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2021;56:264–70. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20200923-00730
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      2. Kim SR ,
      3. Cloutier BT ,
      4. Leung S , et al
      . Molecular subtypes of clear cell carcinoma of the endometrium: opportunities for prognostic and predictive stratification. Gynecologic Oncology 2020;158:3–11. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.043
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Bosse T ,
      3. Nout RA ,
      4. McAlpine JN , et al
      . Molecular classification of grade 3 endometrioid endometrial cancers identifies distinct prognostic subgroups. Am J Surg Pathol 2018;42:561–8. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000001020
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • AZ and YD are joint first authors.

    • Contributors AZ performed the formal analysis, visualisation and original draft. YD performed the data curation and methodology. YW performed the conceptualisation. XL performed the review and editing. JW performed the supervision and project administration as the guarantor. All authors approved the final manuscript and the submission to this journal.

    • Funding National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2704405).

    • Competing interests JW is the editor-in-chief of Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.