Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 28, 2025
An Orthotopic Endometrial Cancer Model with Retroperitoneal Lymphadenopathy Made From In Vivo Propagated and Cultured VX2 Cells
Published on: September 12, 2019
A population-based risk scoring system to individualize adjuvant treatment for stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients
Xi-Lin Yang1, Yue-Er Zhang2, Ling-Na Kou3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China.
Background:
To develop a risk scoring system to tailor the adjuvant treatment for stage IIIC EC patients after surgery.
Methods:
Data source was from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry, where 3251 post-operative stage IIIC EC patients with different adjuvant treatment were included. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors. The exp (β) of each independent risk factors generating from the cox analysis was used to construct the risk scoring system, which was further utilized to divide the patients into different risk subgroups and the efficacy of different adjuvant modalities in each risk subgroups would be compared accordingly.
Results:
Six independent risk factors were identified to develop the scoring system, which further divided the patients into three risk subgroups based on the total risk score (Low-risk≤8.46, 8.47 ≤ Middle-risk≤9.94, High-risk≥9.95). This study revealed that CRT was not superior to RT alone (HR:1.208, 95%CI: 0.852-1.741; P = 0.289) or CT alone (HR:1.260, 95%CI: 0.750-2.116; P = 0.382) in Low-risk subgroup. We also observed that CRT had a survival advantage over other treatment modalities in the Middle-risk subgroup (All P < 0.001), but CRT and CT alone to be superimposable in the High-risk subgroup (HR: 1.395, 95%CI: 0.878-2.216; P = 0.159).
Conclusion:
A risk scoring system has been developed to tailor the adjuvant treatment for stage IIIC EC patients after surgery, where RT or CT alone could be a substitute for CRT in Low-risk patients and CT alone was a potential alternative for High-risk patients while CRT remained to be the optimal choice for the Middle-risk patients.
