Skip to main content

Table 1 Associations between clinicopathological features and LNM

From: Development of a novel predictive model for lymph node metastasis in patients with endometrial endometrioid carcinoma

Variable

 

All patients

LNM

P value

Absent No.(%)

Present No.(%)

 

Age (years)*

 

63.4 ± 11.2 [35—91]

62.2 ± 10.4 [35—89]

64.1 ± 10.5 [38—91]

0.875

T stage

T1

171

137 (80.1)

34 (19.9%)

0.734

T2

197

155 (78.7)

42 (21.3)

Tumor size (mm)

 

33.2 ± 7.2 [12.5—43.5]

32.2 ± 7.4 [13.5—38.5]

34.1 ± 7.5 [12.5—43.5]

0.123

High grade nuclear

Absent

281

241 (85.8)

40 (14.2)

0.014

Present

63

46 (73.0)

17 (27.0)

MELF

Absent

310

269 (86.8)

41 (13.2)

 < 0.001

Present

34

18 (52.9)

16 (47.1)

Stroma reaction

Inflammatory

56

49 (87.5)

7 (12.5)

0.100

Fibrosis

230

195 (84.8)

35 (15.2)

Myxoid

58

43 (74.1)

15 (25.9)

Histology grade pattern

 

22.5 ± 19.4 [0.0—75.0]

19.3 ± 13.7 [0.0—70.0]

38.9 ± 17.4 [3.0—75.0]

 < 0.001

Lymph-vascular invasion

Absent

220

200 (90.9)

20 (9.1)

 < 0.001

Present

124

87 (70.2)

37 (29.8)

Necrosis

Absent

293

260 (88.7)

33 (11.3)

 < 0.001

Present

51

27 (52.9)

24 (47.1)

Mitosis

 

7.3 ± 3.1 [1.0—16.0]

6.8 ± 2.9 [1.0—14.0]

9.8 ± 2.9 [3.0—16.0]

 < 0.001

FIGO

G1

51

48 (94.1)

3 (5.9)

 < 0.001

G2

185

165 (89.2)

20 (10.8)

G3

108

74 (68.5)

34 (31.5)

Silverberg

G1

86

82 (95.3)

4 (4.7)

 < 0.001

G2

175

149 (85.1)

26 (14.9)

G3

83

56 (67.5)

27 (32.5)

  1. LNM lymph node metastasis, MELF microcystic, elongated, and fragmented, FIGO International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  2. *Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation