Salvage cytoreductive surgery for patients with recurrent endometrial cancer: a retrospective study
© Ren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 12 November 2013
Accepted: 19 February 2014
Published: 26 February 2014
Salvage cytoreductive surgery (SCR) has been shown to improve the survival of cancer patients. This study aimed to determine the survival benefits of SCR for recurrent endometrial cancer in Chinese population.
Between January 1995 and May 2012, 75 Chinese patients with recurrent endometrial cancer undergoing SCR were retrospectively analyzed.
43 patients (57.3%) had R0 (no visible disease), 15 patients (20.0%) had R1 (residual disease ≤1 cm), and 17 (22.7%) had R2 (residual disease >1 cm) Resection. 35 patients (46.7%) had single, and 40 (53.3%) had multiple sites of recurrence. The median survival time was 18 months, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate were 42.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that residual disease ≤1 cm and high histology grade were significantly associated with a better OS. The size of the largest recurrent tumors (≤6 cm), solitary recurrent tumor, and age at recurrence (≤56 years old) were associated with optimal SCR.
Optimal SCR and high histology grade are associated with prolonged overall survival for patients with recurrent endometrial cancer. Patients with young age, tumor size < 6 cm, and solitary recurrent tumor are more likely to benefit from optimal cytoreductive surgery.
KeywordsEndometrial cancer Recurrence Cytoreductive surgery Prognosis
Endometrial carcinoma is a common gynecological cancer and the majority of patients present at an early stage with a good long-term prognosis. However, about 13% of patients with endometrial cancer develop recurrent disease, and they have a very poor outcome with a mortality of about 25% [1, 2].
Treatment options for recurrent endometrial cancer vary according to the distribution of recurrent disease. Chemotherapy is often recommended for patients with distant or widely metastatic recurrences, while radiotherapy is recommended for patients with small, isolated pelvic recurrences who have not received radiation [3, 4]. For surgery, pelvic exenteration is recommended for the treatment of a localized central pelvic recurrence refractory to radiation therapy [5, 6], while the benefit of salvage cytoreductive surgery (SCR) in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer is not confirmed. Several recent reports reported that selected patients with resectable recurrent endometrial cancer could benefit from complete SCR [7–10]. Therefore, the surgical indications and selection criteria are urgently needed to minimize the complications and mortality associated with surgery.
In this retrospective study, we evaluated the survival benefit and the safety of SCR for Chinese patients with recurrent endometrial cancer, and tried to define the selection indications for SCR.
The study was approved by Ethics Committee of Fudan University. All patients who participated in the study signed informed consent forms.
All patients with recurrent endometrial cancer undergoing second SCR at the Department of Gynecologic Oncology at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) between January 1995 and May 2012 were identified from a search of FUSCC Endometrial Cancer database. Patients with nonepithelial tumors (eg. sarcoma) were excluded. Recurrence was defined as a regrowth of tumor at least 3 months after the completion of primary therapy.
Patient data were abstracted retrospectively from inpatient and outpatient medical records, including clinical, surgery, and pathology reports of both primary and secondary surgeries. All patients were restaged by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 2009 . Progression free interval (PFI) was defined as the time from primary surgery to the diagnosis of recurrence. The level of cytoreduction for recurrent endometrial cancer was defined as: R0, complete resection with no visible disease; R1, residual disease ≤1 cm; R2, residual disease >1 cm.
The recurrent sites were categorized as solitary and multiple. Patients were divided into two groups according to the detection of recurrence: symptomatic, and asyptomatic groups.
All patients were followed up at least 3 months after surgery. Two patients died 2 months after SCR, and one patients lost follow-up after hospital discharge. The median follow-up duration was 18 months (range: 2–112 months).
The primary statistical endpoints were overall survival (OS) calculated from the date of SCR to the date of death or last follow-up and progression-free survival (PFS) from the date of SCR to the date of progression of disease. The chi-square test was used for discrete and binomial data. Stepwise logistic regression was used to analyze the correlations between clinico-pathological variables and SCR outcome. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards regression model. P < 0.05 was set to be significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 11.0).
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients and univariate analysis for OS after SCR
Median OS (months)
Age at second surgery
ECOG performance status at first surgery
Stage at first surgery (FIGO 2009)
Postoperative therapy after first surgery
Symptoms at recurrence
CA125 at recurrence
≤ 35 U/ml
Recurrence detection of nonsymptomatic
Imaging or CA-125
Largest size of recurrence
≤ 6 cm
> 6 cm
Multiplicity of recurrence
Site of recurrence
Pelvis b and/or introabdomonal
ECOG performance status before SCR
Residual disease after SCR
Postoperative therapy after SCR
At the first surgery, ECOG scores were no more than 2, including 0 in 6 patients, 1 in 62 patients, and 2 in 7 patients. Twenty-seven (36.0%) patients received total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingoopherectomy (TH/BSO), 10 (13.3%) received radical hysterectomy with bilateral salpingoopherectomy (RH/BSO), 12 (16.0%) received TH/BSO and pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL), 15 (20.0%) received RH/BSO/PL, 4 (5.3%) received TH/BSO/PL and para-aortic lymphadenectomy, 7 (9.3%) received TH/BSO and cytoreduction surgery. For patients requiring primary cytoreductive surgery, an optimal resection was obtained in all patients. After the first surgery, 48 (64%) patients received adjuvant therapy, including 33 (44.0%) patients with chemotherapy, 5 (6.7%) with radiotherapy, 6 (8.0%) with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 4 (5.3%) with hormonal therapy.
Median PFI was 18 months (range: 3–372). Median age at recurrence was 56 years old (range: 33–76). In recurrence, 30 patients were diagnosed without symptoms at routine follow-up, and 45 patients with various symptoms, including vaginal bleeding or discharge (17 cases), abdominal pain (16 cases), inguinal mass (3 cases), low-degree fever (3 cases), constipation (3 cases), diarrhea (1 case), hemoptysis (1 case), and lower limb edema (1 case).
Before SCR, 24 cases were treated with chemotherapy, 4 cased with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 1 case with radiotherapy. The most common regimens were paclitaxel plus platinum, or platinum plus doxorubicin.
Salvage cytoreductive surgery
Characteristics of recurrence and second debulking surgery
Number of patients (%)
Largest size of recurrence (cm)
Sites of recurrence
Pelvic and intra-abdominal
Pelvic and retroperitoneal
Intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal
Multiplicity of recurrence
Tumor mass resection
Pelvic lymph node resection
Para-aortic lymph node resection
Inguinal lymph node resection
Patial abdominal wall resection
Partial cystectomy and ureterectomy
Radical pulmonary lobe resection
Operative time (minutes)
Median (range, blood unit)
Median hospitalized day
Residual disease (cm)
Iliac artery injury
Acute renal failure
Deep vein thrombosis
After SCR, 48 (64.0%) patients received salvage chemotherapy. The main regimen used was platinum plus taxol (in 29 patients). Six (8.0%) patients received radiotherapy, and 8 (10.7%) patients received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Twenty (26.7%) patients received hormonal therapy after SCR (5 alone, 15 combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy).
During follow-up, 47 patients (62.7%) had disease progression. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months. The median survival was 18 months (range: 2–112 months). During follow-up, 30 (40.0%) patients died of disease, 14 (18.7%) were alive with disease, and 31 (41.3%) were alive without disease.
Factors associated with the outcomes of SCR
After SCR, R0 resection was achieved in 43 (57.3%) patients, R1 in 15 (20.0%) patients, and R2 in 17 (22.7%) patients.
Logistic regression for clinico-pathologic variables associated with residual disease at second debulking surgery
Age at second surgery (>56 years)
Sites of recurrence (multiple)
Largest size of recurrence (> 6 cm)
Site of recurrence (retroperitoneal)
The treatment for recurrent endometrial cancer varies depending on the recurrent location, the extent of disease, and prior therapy used. For patients with a localized vaginal recurrence and no previous irradiation, radiation therapy could provide a long-term pelvic control and 5-year survival rate of 31-53% [12, 13]. The majority of patients with recurrence are treated with palliative chemotherapy, and/or hormonal therapy. The commonly used chemotherapy included cisplatin, carboplatin, doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and topotecan, with overall response rate ranging from 20% to 37% [14–18]. The response rate of hormonal therapy with progestational agents, anti-estrogens, and gonadotropins-releasing hormone analogs are generally low, ranging from 9% to 16% [19–21]. Surgical resection for recurrent endometrial cancer has traditionally been limited to a selected group of patients presenting with a central pelvic recurrence within a previously irradiated pelvic field. However, only few patients are candidates for this approach [5, 6].
Summary of studies on cytoreductive surgery of recurrent endometrial cancer
Optimal definition (cm)
Optimal cytoreduction (%)
Optimal median OS (m)
Suboptimal median OS (m)
No grossly visible
In previous studies, the definition of optimal cytoreduction was ≤1 cm or ≤2 cm. In this study, we found that patients with ≤1 cm residual disease had significant survival benefit from cytoreductive surgery, compared with the patients with >1 cm residual disease (χ2 = 15.55, P = 0.00), while there was no difference in survival between patients with none disease and 0.1-1 cm (χ2 = 0.465, P = 0.495), and between 1–2 cm and >2 cm (χ2 = 1.592, P = 0.207). Therefore, residual disease of ≤1 cm was considered optimal cytoreduction and pooled together for analysis. These data suggest that the definition of optimal cytoreduction might be <1 cm, but further studies employing larger samples are needed to confirm this definition.
On the other hand, careful selection of the patients is important due to the complications of SCR. In this study we attempted to predict the optimal cytoreduction. The factors associated with optimal cytoreduction in recurrent endometrial cancer were identified by logistic regression analysis. In univariate analysis, the age, PFI, the size of the largest recurrent tumors, the site of recurrence, and multiplicity of recurrence were associated with optimal cytoreduction, which indicates that patients with younger age, longer PFI, smaller tumor size, and recurrent site not in retroperitoneal, and single recurrence are more likely to achieve optimal cytoreduction. However, in multivariate analysis, only the age, the size of the largest recurrent tumors, and multiplicity of recurrence were associated with the optimal cytoreduction. Therefore, patients with young age (<56 years old), small tumor size (<6 cm) and solitary recurrence are more likely to achieve optimal cytoreduction and gain benefit.
After SCR, the patients who received radiotherapy after SCR showed better OS than patients with chemotherapy (p = 0.045). The reason may be due to the fact that more than half of the patients (48 cases, 64%) received chemotherapy with widely disseminated tumor, and only 6 patients received radiotherapy with the disease localized to vagina or vulva. However, adjuvant therapy did not show significance in multivariate analysis. In a previous study the median survival of symptomatic patients was longer than that of asymptomatic patients (27 vs. 12 months); although the difference was not statistically significant . Consistent with this, we found that the median survival of symptomatic patients was longer than that of asymptomatic patients (65 vs. 54 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.723). In addition, we found that patients with recurrence detected by imaging or CA-125 measurements tended to have shorter survival than patients with recurrence detected by physical examination (44.83 vs. 96 months), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.134). Therefore, early detection of recurrence by imaging and CA-125 measurements can not improve prognosis. Routine follow-up for these patients is necessary to detect recurrence by physical examination.
Summary of complications of SCR
In this study, optimal median OS was significantly longer than that reported in previous studies, but there is no much difference in OS (Table 4). Several reasons may account for it: first, the definition of optimal cytoreduction varied in different studies (ranging from <2 cm to no gross residual disease), which influences OS with optimal cytoreduction. Second, the selection of patients is different among different studies. For example, 9 patients who had resection of non-abdominal disease and 13 patients who underwent a pelvic exenterative procedure were excluded in one study . In this study, 4 patients receiving inguinal lymph node resection were included, who had much better OS than patients with abdominal recurrence if optimal cytoreduction was achieved.
There are several limitations of our study. First, the number of patients enrolled in this study is small, due to the infrequency of recurrent endometrial cancer. Therefore, the selection criteria for SCR need to be confirmed in further study. Second, there is a potential for selection bias because our study is retrospective. Prospective study is necessary to identify the appropriate candidates for SCR. Third, we failed to collect the data of the patients who did not undergo cytoreduction and compare them to the patients enrolled in this study, which would strengthen our conclusion that patients with recurrent endometrial cancer would benefit from SCR.
Based on our data, we get the following conclusions. First, patients with residual disease less than 1 cm could benefit from optimal SCR with prolonged overall survival. Second, patients should be carefully selected before the surgery, as patients with younger age, tumor size less than 6 cm, and single recurrence are more likely to achieve satisfied cytoreduction. Third, complications of SCR are not common but should be considered.
The study was funded by Ministry of Education of China (No. 20110071120099). We appreciate the help of Prof. Rongyu Zang and Prof. Xiaohua Wu in the writing of the manuscript, and Prof. Ziting Li in data collection. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
- Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, Lukka H, Chambers A, Oliver T: Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006, 101 (3): 520-9. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.02.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Aalders J, Abeler V, Kolstad P: Recurrent adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: a clinical and histopathological study of 379 patients. Gynecol Oncol. 1984, 17 (1): 85-103. 10.1016/0090-8258(84)90063-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wylie J, Irwin C, Pintilie M, Levin W, Manchul L, Milosevic M, Fyles A: Results of radical radiotherapy for recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000, 77 (1): 66-72. 10.1006/gyno.2000.5727.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jereczek-Fossa B, Badzio A, Jassem J: Recurrent endometrial cancer after surgery alone: results of salvage radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000, 48 (2): 405-13. 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00642-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Morris M, Alvarez RD, Kinney WK, Wilson TO: Treatment of recurrent adenocarcinoma of the endometrium with pelvic exenteration. Gynecol Oncol. 1996, 60 (2): 288-91. 10.1006/gyno.1996.0040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barakat RR, Goldman NA, Patel DA, Venkatraman ES, Curtin JP: Pelvic exenteration for recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1999, 75 (1): 99-102. 10.1006/gyno.1999.5536.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Scarabelli C, Campagnutta E, Giorda G, DePiero G, Sopracordevole F, Quaranta M, DeMarco L: Maximal cytoreductive surgery as a reasonable therapeutic alternative for recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1998, 70 (1): 90-3. 10.1006/gyno.1998.5017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Campagnutta E, Giorda G, De Piero G, Sopracordevole F, Visentin MC, Martella L, Scarabelli C: Surgical treatment of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Cancer. 2004, 100 (1): 89-96. 10.1002/cncr.11868.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bristow RE, Santillan A, Zahurak ML, Gardner GJ, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK: Salvage cytoreductive surgery for recurrent endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006, 103 (1): 281-7. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.03.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Awtrey CS, Cadungog MG, Leitao MM, Alektiar KM, Aghajanian C, Hummer AJ, Barakat RR, Chi DS: Surgical resection of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2006, 102 (3): 480-8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.01.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pecorelli S: Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009, 105 (2): 103-4. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Curran WJ, Whittington R, Peters AJ, Fanning J: Vaginal recurrences of endometrial carcinoma: the prognostic value of staging by a primary vaginal carcinoma system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1988, 15 (4): 803-8. 10.1016/0360-3016(88)90110-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sears JD, Greven KM, Hoen HM, Randall ME: Prognostic factors and treatment outcome for patients with locally recurrent endometrial cancer. Cancer. 1994, 74 (4): 1303-8. 10.1002/1097-0142(19940815)74:4<1303::AID-CNCR2820740420>3.0.CO;2-G.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wadler S, Levy DE, Lincoln ST, Soori GS, Schink JC, Goldberg G: Topotecan is an active agent in the first-line treatment of metastatic or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study E3E93. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (11): 2110-4. 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.093.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lincoln S, Blessing JA, Lee RB, Rocereto TF: Activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003, 88 (3): 277-81. 10.1016/S0090-8258(02)00068-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burke TW, Munkarah A, Kavanagh JJ, Morris M, Levenback C, Tornos C, Gershenson DM: Treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma with single-agent carboplatin. Gynecol Oncol. 1993, 51 (3): 397-400. 10.1006/gyno.1993.1310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thigpen JT, Blessing JA, Homesley H, Creasman WT, Sutton G: Phase II trial of cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1989, 33 (1): 68-70. 10.1016/0090-8258(89)90605-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fleming GF, Brunetto VL, Cella D, Look KY, Reid GC, Munkarah AR, Kline R, Burger RA, Goodman A, Burks RT: Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel plus filfrastim in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22 (11): 2159-66. 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thigpen T, Brady MF, Homesley HD, Soper JT, Bell J: Tamoxifen in the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2001, 19 (2): 364-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Asbury RF, Brunetto VL, Lee RB, Reid G, Rocereto TF: Goserelin acetate as treatment for recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2002, 25 (6): 557-60. 10.1097/00000421-200212000-00004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fiorica JV, Brunetto VL, Hanjani P, Lentz SS, Mannel R, Andersen W: Phase II trial of alternating courses of Megestrol acetate and tamoxifen in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2004, 92 (1): 10-4. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.11.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barlin JN, Puri I, Bristow RE: Cytoreductive surgery for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2010, 118 (1): 14-8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.04.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Otsuka I, Uno M, Wakabayashi A, Kameda S, Udagawa H, Kubota T: Predictive factors for prolonged survival in recurrent endometrial carcinoma: implications for follow-up protocol. Gynecol Oncol. 2010, 119 (3): 506-10. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.08.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/135/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.