Analysis of Factors Related to Lymph Node Metastasis in Early-Stage Type 1 Endometrial Cancer: Verifying the Clinical Value of Positive Threshold of the Immunohistochemical Parameter Ki67

References

• SiegelRL, MillerKD, JemalA. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30. doi:10.3322/caac.2159031912902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChenW, ZhengR, BaadePD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–132. doi:10.3322/caac.2133826808342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ColomboN, CreutzbergC, AmantF, et al.; Group E-E-EECCW. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus. Conference on endometrial cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 27;2016:16–41. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv48426634381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SalaniR, NagelCI, DrennenE, BristowRE. Recurrence patterns and surveillance for patients with early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:205–207. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.07.01421820709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BendifallahS, CanlorbeG, LaasE, et al. A predictive model using histopathologic characteristics of early-stage type 1 endometrial cancer to identify patients at high risk for lymph node metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:4224–4232. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4548-625869227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KonnoY, TodoY, MinobeS, et al. A retrospective analysis of postoperative complications with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21:385–390. doi:10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182094e0921270621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BallesterM, CanlorbeG, CortezA, et al. Histological and immunohistochemical profiles predict lymph node status in women with low-intermediate risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(3):457–462. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.06.00123770577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KangS. Comparing prediction models for lymph node metastasis risk in endometrial cancer: the winner may not take it all. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e92. doi:10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e9229027406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MilamMR, JavaJ, WalkerJL, MetzingerDS, ParkerLP, ColemanRL. Nodal metastasis risk in endometrioid endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2, Part 1):286. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318240de5122270280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CapozziVA, SozziG, UccellaS, et al. Novel preoperative predictive score to evaluate lymphovascular space involvement in endometrial cancer: an aid to the sentinel lymph node algorithm. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30(6):806–812. doi:10.1136/ijgc-2019-00101632284322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoyrazG, AtalayFO, SalmanMC, et al. Comparison of Mayo and Milwaukee risk stratification models for predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:869–874. doi:10.1097/IGC.000000000000126129557824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penault-LlorcaF, Radosevic-RobinN. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology. 2017;49:166–171. doi:10.1016/j.pathol.2016.11.00628065411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OharaM, MatsuuraK, AkimotoE, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 and p53 in patients with estrogen receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer: validation of the cut-off value of the Ki67 labeling index as a predictive factor. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;4:648–654. doi:10.3892/mco.2016.77627073684
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• JiangP, JiaM, HuJ, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 in patients with stage 1–2 endometrial cancer: validation of the cut-off value of Ki67 as a predictive factor. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:10841–10850. doi:10.2147/OTT.S27442033149602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PecorelliS. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):103–104. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.01219367689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN. NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2019 Endometrial Carcinoma. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology; Version 2.2019: NCCN Guidelines for Patients®; 2018. Available from:www.nccn.org. Accessed 82, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• AlHilliMM, PodratzKC, DowdySC, et al. Preoperative biopsy and intraoperative tumor diameter predict lymph node dissemination in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(2):294–299. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.10.00923085458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YangB, ShanB, XueX, et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer using serum CA125 combined with immunohistochemical markers PR and Ki67, and a comparison with other prediction models. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.015514527163153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YuX, GuoS, SongW, et al. Estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) status evaluation using RNAscope in situ hybridization: a reliable and complementary method for IHC in breast cancer tissues. Hum Pathol. 2017;61:121–129. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.00527993577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SmithD, StewartCJR, ClarkeEM, et al. ER and PR expression and survival after endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148:258–266. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.11.02729217139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FerrandinaG, RanellettiFO, GallottaV, et al. Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), receptors for estrogen (ER), and progesterone (PR), p53, ki67, and neu protein in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;98(3):383–389. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.04.02415979129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der PuttenLJM, VisserNCM, van de VijverK, et al. Added value of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and L1 cell adhesion molecule expression to histology-based endometrial carcinoma recurrence prediction models: an ENITEC collaboration study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28:514–523. doi:10.1097/IGC.000000000000118729324536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KobelM, RonnettBM, SinghN, SoslowRA, GilksCB, McCluggageWG. Interpretation of P53 Immunohistochemistry in endometrial carcinomas: toward increased reproducibility. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2019;38(Suppl 1):S123–S131. doi:10.1097/PGP.000000000000048829517499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchistermanEF, PerkinsNJ, LiuA, BondellH. Optimal cut-point and its corresponding youden index to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples. Epidemiology. 2005;16:73–81. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000147512.81966.ba15613948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AntonC, BaracatEC, DoganNU, KöhlerC, CarvalhoJP, Di FaveroGM. A novel model to estimate lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer patients. Clinics. 2017;72:30–35. doi:10.6061/clinics/2017(01)0628226030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KoskasM, FournierM, VanderstraetenA, et al. Evaluation of models to predict lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: a multicentre study. Eur J Cancer. 2016;61:52–60. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.07927153472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DowsettM, NielsenTO, A’HernR, et al.; International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working G. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(22):1656–1664. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr39321960707
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HonmaN, HoriiR, IwaseT, et al. Ki-67 evaluation at the hottest spot predicts clinical outcome of patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen monotherapy. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:71–78. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0455-523479208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JiangP, JiaM, HuJ, HuangZ, DengY, HuZ. A nomogram model involving immunohistochemical markers for predicting the recurrence of stage I-II endometrial cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:586081. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.58608133585205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar