Skip to Content

Endometrial Cancer Treatment (PDQ®): Treatment - Health Professional Information [NCI]

This information is produced and provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The information in this topic may have changed since it was written. For the most current information, contact the National Cancer Institute via the Internet web site at http://cancer.gov or call 1-800-4-CANCER.

Endometrial Cancer Treatment

General Information About Endometrial Cancer

Incidence and Mortality

Estimated new cases and deaths from endometrial (uterine corpus) cancer in the United States in 2013:[1]

  • New cases: 49,560.
  • Deaths: 8,190.

Cancer of the endometrium is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States and accounts for 6% of all cancers in women. Irregular vaginal bleeding is an early sign and foremost symptom of the highly curable endometrial tumor To detect endometrial cancer, a technique that directly samples the endometrial tissue is mandatory. The Pap smear is not reliable as a screening procedure in endometrial cancer, although a retrospective study found a strong correlation between positive cervical cytology and high-risk disease (i.e., high-grade tumor and deep myometrial invasion) [2] as well as an increased risk of nodal disease.[3] The degree of tumor differentiation has an important impact on the natural history of this disease and on treatment selection. An increased incidence of endometrial cancer has been found in association with prolonged, unopposed estrogen exposure.[4,5] In contrast, combined estrogen and progesterone therapy prevents the increase in risk of endometrial cancer associated with unopposed estrogen use.[6,7] In some patients, an antecedent history of complex hyperplasia with atypia can be demonstrated. An increased incidence of endometrial cancer has also been found in association with tamoxifen treatment of breast cancer (NSABP-B-14), related to the estrogenic effect of tamoxifen on the endometrium.[8,9] Because of this increase, patients on tamoxifen should have follow-up pelvic examinations and should be examined if there is any abnormal uterine bleeding.

The pattern of spread is partially dependent on the degree of cellular differentiation. Well-differentiated tumors tend to limit their spread to the surface of the endometrium; myometrial extension is less common. In patients with poorly differentiated tumors, myometrial invasion occurs much more frequently. Myometrial invasion is frequently a harbinger of lymph node involvement and distant metastases and is often independent of the degree of differentiation.[10,11] Metastatic spread occurs in a characteristic pattern. Spread to the pelvic and para-aortic nodes is common. When distant metastasis occurs, it most commonly involves the following:

  • Lungs.
  • Inguinal and supraclavicular nodes.
  • Liver.
  • Bones.
  • Brain.
  • Vagina.

Another factor found to correlate with extrauterine and nodal spread of tumor is involvement of the capillary-lymphatic space on histopathologic examination.[12] Three prognostic groupings of clinical stage I disease become possible by careful operative staging. Patients with grade 1 tumors involving only endometrium and no evidence of intraperitoneal disease (i.e., adnexal spread) have a low risk (<5%) of nodal involvement.[13] Patients with grade 2 or 3 tumors and invasion of less than 50% of the myometrium and no intraperitoneal disease have a 5% to 9% incidence of pelvic node involvement and a 4% incidence of positive para-aortic nodes. Patients with deep muscle invasion and high-grade tumors and/or intraperitoneal disease have a significant risk of nodal spread, 20% to 60% to pelvic nodes and 10% to 30% to para-aortic nodes. One study was directed specifically at stage I, grade 1 carcinomas of favorable histologic type. The authors identified the following four statistically significant adverse prognostic factors:[14]

  • Myometrial invasion.
  • Vascular invasion.
  • Eight or more mitoses per ten high-power fields.
  • An absence of progesterone receptors.

Another group identified aneuploidy and a high S-phase fraction as predictive of poor prognosis.[15] A Gynecologic Oncology Group study related surgical-pathologic parameters and postoperative treatment to recurrence-free interval and recurrence site. For patients without extrauterine spread, the greatest determinants of recurrence were grade 3 histology and deep myometrial invasion. In this study, the frequency of recurrence was greatly increased with positive pelvic nodes, adnexal metastasis, positive peritoneal cytology, capillary space involvement, involvement of the isthmus or cervix, and, particularly, positive para-aortic nodes (includes all grades and depth of invasion). Of the cases with aortic node metastases, 98% were in patients with positive pelvic nodes, intra-abdominal metastases, or tumor invasion of the outer 33% of the myometrium.[16,17]

When the only evidence of extrauterine spread is positive peritoneal cytology, the influence on outcome is unclear. The value of therapy directed at this cytologic finding is not well founded.[18,19,20,21,22,23] As a result, although the collection of cytology specimens is still suggested, a positive result does not upstage the disease. Other extrauterine disease must be present before additional postoperative therapy is considered.

One report found progesterone receptor levels to be the single most important prognostic indicator of 3-year survival in clinical stage I and II disease. Patients with progesterone receptor levels higher than 100 had a 3-year disease-free survival of 93% compared with 36% for a level lower than 100. Only cervical involvement and peritoneal cytology were significant prognostic variables after adjusting for progesterone receptor levels.[24] Other reports confirm the importance of hormone receptor status as an independent prognostic factor.[25] Additionally, immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded tissue for both estrogen and progesterone receptors has been shown to correlate with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade as well as survival.[26,27,28] On the basis of these data, progesterone and estrogen receptors, assessed either by biochemical or immunohistochemical methods, should be included, when possible, in the evaluation of stage I and II patients. The following have also been found to be prognostic indicators of clinical outcome:[28]

  • Oncogene expression.
  • DNA ploidy.
  • The fraction of cells in S-phase.

For example, overexpression of the Her-2/neu oncogene has been associated with a poor overall prognosis.[29] A general review of prognostic factors has been published.[30]

Related Summaries

Other PDQ summaries containing information related to endometrial (uterine corpus) cancer include the following:

  • Endometrial Cancer Prevention
  • Endometrial Cancer Screening
  • Uterine Sarcoma Treatment

References:

1. American Cancer Society.: Cancer Facts and Figures 2013. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2013. Available online. Last accessed September 5, 2013.
2. DuBeshter B, Warshal DP, Angel C, et al.: Endometrial carcinoma: the relevance of cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 77 (3): 458-62, 1991.
3. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Reyes CN Jr, et al.: Prognostic significance of malignant cervical cytology in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 84 (3): 399-403, 1994.
4. Ziel HK, Finkle WD: Increased risk of endometrial carcinoma among users of conjugated estrogens. N Engl J Med 293 (23): 1167-70, 1975.
5. Jick SS, Walker AM, Jick H: Estrogens, progesterone, and endometrial cancer. Epidemiology 4 (1): 20-4, 1993.
6. Jick SS: Combined estrogen and progesterone use and endometrial cancer. Epidemiology 4 (4): 384, 1993.
7. Bilezikian JP: Major issues regarding estrogen replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. J Womens Health 3(4): 273-282, 1994.
8. van Leeuwen FE, Benraadt J, Coebergh JW, et al.: Risk of endometrial cancer after tamoxifen treatment of breast cancer. Lancet 343 (8895): 448-52, 1994.
9. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Redmond CK, et al.: Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (7): 527-37, 1994.
10. Hendrickson M, Ross J, Eifel PJ, et al.: Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: analysis of 256 cases with carcinoma limited to the uterine corpus. Pathology review and analysis of prognostic variables. Gynecol Oncol 13 (3): 373-92, 1982.
11. Nori D, Hilaris BS, Tome M, et al.: Combined surgery and radiation in endometrial carcinoma: an analysis of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13 (4): 489-97, 1987.
12. Hanson MB, van Nagell JR Jr, Powell DE, et al.: The prognostic significance of lymph-vascular space invasion in stage I endometrial cancer. Cancer 55 (8): 1753-7, 1985.
13. Takeshima N, Hirai Y, Tanaka N, et al.: Pelvic lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer with no myometrial invasion. Obstet Gynecol 88 (2): 280-2, 1996.
14. Tornos C, Silva EG, el-Naggar A, et al.: Aggressive stage I grade 1 endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 70 (4): 790-8, 1992.
15. Friberg LG, Norén H, Delle U: Prognostic value of DNA ploidy and S-phase fraction in endometrial cancer stage I and II: a prospective 5-year survival study. Gynecol Oncol 53 (1): 64-9, 1994.
16. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al.: Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 40 (1): 55-65, 1991.
17. Lanciano RM, Corn BW, Schultz DJ, et al.: The justification for a surgical staging system in endometrial carcinoma. Radiother Oncol 28 (3): 189-96, 1993.
18. Ambros RA, Kurman RJ: Combined assessment of vascular and myometrial invasion as a model to predict prognosis in stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterine corpus. Cancer 69 (6): 1424-31, 1992.
19. Turner DA, Gershenson DM, Atkinson N, et al.: The prognostic significance of peritoneal cytology for stage I endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 74 (5): 775-80, 1989.
20. Piver MS, Recio FO, Baker TR, et al.: A prospective trial of progesterone therapy for malignant peritoneal cytology in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 47 (3): 373-6, 1992.
21. Kadar N, Homesley HD, Malfetano JH: Positive peritoneal cytology is an adverse factor in endometrial carcinoma only if there is other evidence of extrauterine disease. Gynecol Oncol 46 (2): 145-9, 1992.
22. Lurain JR: The significance of positive peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 46 (2): 143-4, 1992.
23. Lurain JR, Rice BL, Rademaker AW, et al.: Prognostic factors associated with recurrence in clinical stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol 78 (1): 63-9, 1991.
24. Ingram SS, Rosenman J, Heath R, et al.: The predictive value of progesterone receptor levels in endometrial cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17 (1): 21-7, 1989.
25. Creasman WT: Prognostic significance of hormone receptors in endometrial cancer. Cancer 71 (4 Suppl): 1467-70, 1993.
26. Carcangiu ML, Chambers JT, Voynick IM, et al.: Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part I: Clinical and histologic correlations. Am J Clin Pathol 94 (3): 247-54, 1990.
27. Chambers JT, Carcangiu ML, Voynick IM, et al.: Immunohistochemical evaluation of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in 183 patients with endometrial carcinoma. Part II: Correlation between biochemical and immunohistochemical methods and survival. Am J Clin Pathol 94 (3): 255-60, 1990.
28. Gurpide E: Endometrial cancer: biochemical and clinical correlates. J Natl Cancer Inst 83 (6): 405-16, 1991.
29. Hetzel DJ, Wilson TO, Keeney GL, et al.: HER-2/neu expression: a major prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 47 (2): 179-85, 1992.
30. Homesley HD, Zaino R: Endometrial cancer: prognostic factors. Semin Oncol 21 (1): 71-8, 1994.

Cellular Classification of Endometrial Cancer

The most common endometrial cancer cell type is endometrioid adenocarcinoma, which is composed of malignant glandular epithelial elements; an admixture of squamous metaplasia is not uncommon. Adenosquamous tumors contain malignant elements of both glandular and squamous epithelium;[1] clear cell and papillary serous carcinoma of the endometrium are tumors that are histologically similar to those noted in the ovary and the fallopian tube, and the prognosis is worse for these tumors.[2] Mucinous, squamous, and undifferentiated tumors are rarely encountered. Frequency of endometrial cancer cell types is as follows:

1. Endometrioid (75%–80%).
1. Ciliated adenocarcinoma.
2. Secretory adenocarcinoma.
3. Papillary or villoglandular.
4. Adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation.
1. Adenoacanthoma.
2. Adenosquamous.
2. Uterine papillary serous (<10%).
3. Mucinous (1%).
4. Clear cell (4%).
5. Squamous cell (<1%).
6. Mixed (10%).
7. Undifferentiated.

References:

1. Zaino RJ, Kurman R, Herbold D, et al.: The significance of squamous differentiation in endometrial carcinoma. Data from a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer 68 (10): 2293-302, 1991.
2. Gusberg SB: Virulence factors in endometrial cancer. Cancer 71 (4 Suppl): 1464-6, 1993.

Stage Information for Endometrial Cancer

Definitions: FIGO

The Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) have designated staging to define endometrial cancer; the FIGO system is most commonly used.[1,2]

Carcinosarcomas should be staged as carcinoma.[2] FIGO stages are further subdivided by the histologic grade of the tumor, for example, stage IC G2.

Table 1. Carcinoma of the Endometriuma

Stage
a Adapted from FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology.[1]
b Either G1, G2, or G3 (G = grade).
c Endocervical glandular involvement only should be considered as stage I and no longer as stage II.
d Positive cytology has to be reported separately without changing the stage.
Ib Tumor confined to the corpus uteri.
IAb No or less than half myometrial invasion.
IBb Invasion equal to or more than half of the myometrium.
IIb Tumor invades cervical stroma but does not extend beyond the uterus.c
IIIb Local and/or regional spread of the tumor.
IIIAb Tumor invades the serosa of the corpus uteri and/or adnexae.d
IIIBb Vaginal and/or parametrial involvement.d
IIICb Metastases to pelvic and/or para-aortic lymph nodes.d
IIIC1b Positive pelvic nodes.
IIIC2b Positive para-aortic lymph nodes with or without positive pelvic lymph nodes.
IVb Tumor invades bladder and/or bowel mucosa, and/or distant metastases.
IVAb Tumor invasion of bladder and/or bowel mucosa.
IVBb Distant metastases, including intra-abdominal metastases and/or inguinal lymph nodes.

References:

1. Pecorelli S: Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105 (2): 103-4, 2009.
2. Corpus uteri. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al., eds.: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2010, pp 403-18.

Treatment Option Overview

Patients with endometrial cancer who have localized disease are usually curable by hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Best results are obtained with either of two standard treatments: hysterectomy or hysterectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy (when deep invasion of the myometrial muscle [50% of the depth] or grade 3 tumor with myometrial invasion is present). Results of two randomized trials on the use of external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with stage I disease did not show improved survival but did show reduced locoregional recurrence (3%–4% vs. 12%–14% after 5–6 years' median follow-up, P <.001) with an increase in side effects.[1,2,3][Level of evidence: 1iiDii] Results of a study by the Danish Endometrial Cancer Group also suggest that the absence of radiation does not improve the survival of patients with stage I, intermediate-risk disease (grade 1 and 2 with >50% myometrial invasion or grade 3 with <50% myometrial invasion).[4]

Vaginal cuff brachytherapy is associated with less radiation-related morbidity than is EBRT and has been shown to be equivalent to EBRT in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage I disease.[5] A subset of patients with stage I disease are at a high risk of recurrence and are eligible for adjuvant therapy. Most patients will do well with surgery alone.

Some patients have regional and distant metastases that, though occasionally responsive to standard hormone therapy, are rarely curable. For these patients, standard therapy is inadequate.

Progestational agents have been evaluated as adjuvant therapy in a randomized clinical trial of stage I disease and have been shown to be of no benefit. These studies, however, were not stratified according to level of progesterone receptor in the primary tumor. No trials of adjuvant progestins in more advanced disease are reported. Determination of progesterone receptors in the primary tumor is encouraged, and entry onto an appropriate adjuvant trial (if receptor levels are high) should be considered. If no trial is available, data from receptors on the primary tumor may help guide therapy for recurrent disease, should it occur.

References:

1. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al.: Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 355 (9213): 1404-11, 2000.
2. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL, et al.: A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 92 (3): 744-51, 2004.
3. Scholten AN, van Putten WL, Beerman H, et al.: Postoperative radiotherapy for Stage 1 endometrial carcinoma: long-term outcome of the randomized PORTEC trial with central pathology review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63 (3): 834-8, 2005.
4. Bertelsen K, Ortoft G, Hansen ES: Survival of Danish patients with endometrial cancer in the intermediate-risk group not given postoperative radiotherapy: the Danish Endometrial Cancer Study (DEMCA). Int J Gynecol Cancer 21 (7): 1191-9, 2011.
5. Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H, et al.: Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 375 (9717): 816-23, 2010.

Stage I Endometrial Cancer

Standard treatment options:

A total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be done if the tumor:

  • Is well or moderately differentiated.
  • Involves the upper 66% of the corpus.
  • Has negative peritoneal cytology.
  • Is without vascular space invasion.
  • Has less than a 50% myometrial invasion.

Selected pelvic lymph nodes may be removed. If they are negative, no postoperative treatment is indicated. Postoperative treatment with a vaginal cylinder is advocated by some clinicians.[1]

For all other cases and cell types, a pelvic and selective periaortic node sampling should be combined with the total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, if there are no medical or technical contraindications. One study found that node dissection per se did not significantly add to the overall morbidity from hysterectomy.[2] While the radiation therapy will reduce the incidence of local and regional recurrence, improved survival has not been proven and toxic effects are worse.[3,4,5,6] Results of two randomized trials on the use of adjuvant radiation therapy in patients with stage I disease did not show improved survival but did show reduced locoregional recurrence (3%–4% vs. 12%–14% after 5–6 years' median follow-up, P <.001) with an increase in side effects.[6,7,8][Level of evidence: 1iiDii] Results of a study by the Danish Endometrial Cancer Group also suggest that the absence of radiation does not improve the survival of patients with stage I, intermediate-risk disease (grade 1 and 2 with >50% myometrial invasion or grade 3 with <50% myometrial invasion).[9]

The PORTEC-2 trial randomly assigned patients with stage I endometrial cancer who did not undergo lymph node dissection to undergo vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) or external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), with prevention of vaginal recurrence as the primary outcome.[10] At 5 years, there was no difference in the rates of vaginal recurrence, locoregional recurrence, progression-free survival or overall survival (OS) (84.8% [95% confidence interval—CI—, 79.3–90.3] vs. 79.6% [95% CI, 71.2–88.0] for VBT and EBRT, respectively; P = .57). There were significantly fewer gastrointestinal toxic effects in the VBT group, making VBT the preferred option for adjuvant treatment of patients with stage I disease.[10][Level of evidence: 1iA]

Patients who have medical contraindications to surgery should be treated with radiation therapy alone, but inferior cure rates below those attained with surgery may occur.[1,11,12]

Several randomized trials have compared total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with the standard open procedure, total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), for patients with early-stage endometrial cancer. Thus far, these reports have been limited to the feasibility of the procedure and quality of life. Feasibility of the laparoscopic approach has been confirmed, although TLH is associated with a longer operative time.[13,14,15] TLH had an improved [13,14] or similar [15] adverse event profile and a shorter hospital stay [13,14,15] when compared with TAH. TLH was associated with less pain and quicker resumption of daily activities,[15,16] although one study found that most of the gains in quality of life favoring laparoscopy at the 6-week postsurgical period were no longer significant at 6 months.[15,16] Questions remain regarding the efficacy of TLH compared with TAH for endometrial cancer [17] and are awaiting the reports of disease-free survival and OS from these phase III studies.

The completed GOG-LAP2 trial included 2,616 patients with clinical stage I to IIA disease and randomly assigned them two-to-one to comprehensive surgical staging via laparoscopy or laparotomy.[18] Time to recurrence was the primary endpoint, with noninferiority defined as a difference in recurrence rate of less than 5.3% between the two groups at 3 years. The recurrence rate at 3 years was 10.24% for patients in the laparotomy arm, compared with 11.39% for patients in the laparoscopy arm, with an estimated difference between groups of 1.14% (90% lower bound, -1.278; 95% upper bound, 3.996). Although this difference was lower than the prespecified limit, the statistical requirements for noninferiority were not met because of a lower-than-expected number of recurrences in both groups. The OS at 5 years was 89.8% in both groups. Future analyses may determine whether there are subgroups of patients for whom there is a clinically significant decrement when laparoscopic staging is utilized.[18][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with stage I endometrial carcinoma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Eltabbakh GH, Piver MS, Hempling RE, et al.: Excellent long-term survival and absence of vaginal recurrences in 332 patients with low-risk stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma treated with hysterectomy and vaginal brachytherapy without formal staging lymph node sampling: report of a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38 (2): 373-80, 1997.
2. Homesley HD, Kadar N, Barrett RJ, et al.: Selective pelvic and periaortic lymphadenectomy does not increase morbidity in surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167 (5): 1225-30, 1992.
3. Aalders J, Abeler V, Kolstad P, et al.: Postoperative external irradiation and prognostic parameters in stage I endometrial carcinoma: clinical and histopathologic study of 540 patients. Obstet Gynecol 56 (4): 419-27, 1980.
4. Morrow CP, Bundy BN, Kurman RJ, et al.: Relationship between surgical-pathological risk factors and outcome in clinical stage I and II carcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 40 (1): 55-65, 1991.
5. Marchetti DL, Caglar H, Driscoll DL, et al.: Pelvic radiation in stage I endometrial adenocarcinoma with high-risk attributes. Gynecol Oncol 37 (1): 51-4, 1990.
6. Creutzberg CL, van Putten WL, Koper PC, et al.: Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for patients with stage-1 endometrial carcinoma: multicentre randomised trial. PORTEC Study Group. Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma. Lancet 355 (9213): 1404-11, 2000.
7. Keys HM, Roberts JA, Brunetto VL, et al.: A phase III trial of surgery with or without adjunctive external pelvic radiation therapy in intermediate risk endometrial adenocarcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 92 (3): 744-51, 2004.
8. Scholten AN, van Putten WL, Beerman H, et al.: Postoperative radiotherapy for Stage 1 endometrial carcinoma: long-term outcome of the randomized PORTEC trial with central pathology review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63 (3): 834-8, 2005.
9. Bertelsen K, Ortoft G, Hansen ES: Survival of Danish patients with endometrial cancer in the intermediate-risk group not given postoperative radiotherapy: the Danish Endometrial Cancer Study (DEMCA). Int J Gynecol Cancer 21 (7): 1191-9, 2011.
10. Nout RA, Smit VT, Putter H, et al.: Vaginal brachytherapy versus pelvic external beam radiotherapy for patients with endometrial cancer of high-intermediate risk (PORTEC-2): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 375 (9717): 816-23, 2010.
11. Stokes S, Bedwinek J, Kao MS, et al.: Treatment of stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium by hysterectomy and adjuvant irradiation: a retrospective analysis of 304 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12 (3): 339-44, 1986.
12. Grigsby PW, Kuske RR, Perez CA, et al.: Medically inoperable stage I adenocarcinoma of the endometrium treated with radiotherapy alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 13 (4): 483-8, 1987.
13. Janda M, Gebski V, Brand A, et al.: Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11 (8): 772-80, 2010.
14. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al.: Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27 (32): 5331-6, 2009.
15. Mourits MJ, Bijen CB, Arts HJ, et al.: Safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11 (8): 763-71, 2010.
16. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, et al.: Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 27 (32): 5337-42, 2009.
17. Vergote I, Amant F, Neven P: Is it safe to treat endometrial carcinoma endoscopically? J Clin Oncol 27 (32): 5305-7, 2009.
18. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al.: Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol 30 (7): 695-700, 2012.

Stage II Endometrial Cancer

Standard treatment options:

1. If cervical involvement is documented, options include radical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection.
2. If the cervix is clinically uninvolved but extension to the cervix is documented on postoperative pathology, radiation therapy should be considered.

The completed GOG-LAP2 trial included 2,616 patients with clinical stage I to IIA disease and randomly assigned them two-to-one to comprehensive surgical staging via laparoscopy or laparotomy.[1] Time to recurrence was the primary endpoint, with noninferiority defined as a difference in recurrence rate of less than 5.3% between the two groups at 3 years. The recurrence rate at 3 years was 10.24% for patients in the laparotomy arm, compared with 11.39% for patients in the laparoscopy arm, with an estimated difference between groups of 1.14% (90% lower bound, -1.278; 95% upper bound, 3.996). Although this difference was lower than the prespecified limit, the statistical requirements for noninferiority were not met because of a lower-than-expected number of recurrences in both groups. The OS at 5 years was 89.8% in both groups. Future analyses may determine whether there are subgroups of patients for whom there is a clinically significant decrement when laparoscopic staging is utilized.[1][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with stage II endometrial carcinoma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al.: Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol 30 (7): 695-700, 2012.

Stage III Endometrial Cancer

Standard treatment options:

In general, patients with stage III endometrial cancer are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, or both. For many years, radiation therapy was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with endometrial cancer. However, several randomized trials have confirmed improved survival when adjuvant chemotherapy is used instead of radiation therapy. In a trial conducted in a subset of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement, the use of the combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval limits, 0.52–0.89; P = .02; 5-year survival rates of 55% vs. 42%).[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

In a subsequent trial, paclitaxel with doxorubicin had an outcome similar to that of cisplatin with doxorubicin.[2,3] The three-drug regimen (doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), however, was significantly superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin: response rates were 57% versus 34%; progression-free survival was 8.3 months versus 5.3 months; and OS was 15.3 months versus 12.3 months, respectively. The superior regimen was associated with a 12% grade 3 and a 27% grade 2 peripheral neuropathy.[2,3][Level of evidence: 1iiDiv]

Given the toxicity and limited efficacy of these regimens, other treatment options have been widely sought. Several observational studies [4,5] and phase II studies [6,7,8,9] suggested clinical activity with the combination of platinums and paclitaxel in endometrial cancer patients with measurable disease either following primary surgery or at recurrence. As a result, the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) opened protocol GOG-0209, a noninferiority trial comparing the combination of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel (TAP) with G-CSF to carboplatin and paclitaxel. The interim results, currently available in abstract form, showing that carboplatin and paclitaxel is not inferior to TAP have lent credence to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel as the standard for adjuvant treatment of stage III and IV disease.

Patients with inoperable disease caused by tumor that extends to the pelvic wall may be treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The usual approach is to use a combination of intracavitary radiation therapy and external-beam radiation therapy.

Patients who are not candidates for either surgery or radiation therapy may be treated with progestational agents. Studies of patterns of failure have found a high rate of distant metastases in the upper abdominal and extra-abdominal sites. For this reason, patients with stage III disease may be candidates for innovative clinical trials.[10]

Treatment options under clinical evaluation:

  • The use of biological agents alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, is being investigated in multiple clinical trials.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with stage III endometrial carcinoma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, et al.: Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 24 (1): 36-44, 2006.
2. Fleming GF, Brunetto VL, Cella D, et al.: Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel plus filgrastim in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 22 (11): 2159-66, 2004.
3. Fleming GF, Filiaci VL, Bentley RC, et al.: Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 15 (8): 1173-8, 2004.
4. Arimoto T, Nakagawa S, Yasugi T, et al.: Treatment with paclitaxel plus carboplatin, alone or with irradiation, of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 104 (1): 32-5, 2007.
5. Sovak MA, Hensley ML, Dupont J, et al.: Paclitaxel and carboplatin in the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk stage III and IV endometrial cancer: a retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol 103 (2): 451-7, 2006.
6. Hoskins PJ, Swenerton KD, Pike JA, et al.: Paclitaxel and carboplatin, alone or with irradiation, in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 19 (20): 4048-53, 2001.
7. Pectasides D, Xiros N, Papaxoinis G, et al.: Carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 109 (2): 250-4, 2008.
8. Nomura H, Aoki D, Takahashi F, et al.: Randomized phase II study comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin, docetaxel plus carboplatin, and paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study (JGOG2041). Ann Oncol 22 (3): 636-42, 2011.
9. Dimopoulos MA, Papadimitriou CA, Georgoulias V, et al.: Paclitaxel and cisplatin in advanced or recurrent carcinoma of the endometrium: long-term results of a phase II multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 78 (1): 52-7, 2000.
10. Greven KM, Curran WJ Jr, Whittington R, et al.: Analysis of failure patterns in stage III endometrial carcinoma and therapeutic implications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17 (1): 35-9, 1989.

Stage IV Endometrial Cancer

Standard treatment options:

Treatment of patients with stage IV endometrial cancer is dictated by the site of metastatic disease and symptoms related to disease sites. For bulky pelvic disease, radiation therapy consisting of a combination of intracavitary and external-beam radiation therapy is used. When distant metastases, especially pulmonary metastases, are present, hormonal therapy is indicated and useful. Observational studies support maximal cytoreductive surgery for patients with stage IV disease, although these conclusions need to be interpreted with care because of the small number of cases and likely selection bias.

When possible, patients with stage IV endometrial cancer are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, or both. For many years, radiation therapy was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with endometrial cancer. However, several randomized trials have confirmed improved survival when adjuvant chemotherapy is used instead of radiation therapy. In a trial conducted in a subset of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement, the use of the combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval limits, 0.52–0.89; P = .02; 5-year survival rates of 55% vs. 42%).[1][Level of evidence: 1iiA]

In a subsequent trial, paclitaxel with doxorubicin had an outcome similar to that of cisplatin with doxorubicin.[2,3] The three-drug regimen (doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), however, was significantly superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin: response rates were 57% versus 34%; progression-free survival was 8.3 months versus 5.3 months; and OS was 15.3 months versus 12.3 months, respectively. The superior regimen was associated with a 12% grade 3 and a 27% grade 2 peripheral neuropathy.[2,3][Level of evidence: 1iiDiv]

Given the toxicity and limited efficacy of these regimens, other treatment options have been widely sought. Several observational studies [4,5] and phase II studies [6,7,8,9] suggested clinical activity with the combination of platinums and paclitaxel in endometrial cancer patients with measurable disease either following primary surgery or at recurrence. As a result, the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) opened protocol GOG-0209, a noninferiority trial comparing the combination of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel (TAP) and G-CSF with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The interim results, currently available in abstract form, showing that carboplatin and paclitaxel is not inferior to TAP have lent credence to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel as the standard for adjuvant treatment in stage III and IV disease.

The most common hormonal treatment has been progestational agents, which produce good antitumor responses in as many as 15% to 30% of patients. These responses are associated with significant improvement in survival. Progesterone and estrogen hormone receptors have been identified in endometrial carcinoma tissues. Responses to hormones are correlated with the presence and level of hormone receptors and the degree of tumor differentiation. Standard progestational agents include hydroxyprogesterone, medroxyprogesterone, and megestrol.[10]

Treatment options under clinical evaluation:

All patients with advanced disease should be considered for clinical trials that evaluate single-agent or combination therapy for this disease.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with stage IV endometrial carcinoma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, et al.: Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 24 (1): 36-44, 2006.
2. Fleming GF, Brunetto VL, Cella D, et al.: Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel plus filgrastim in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 22 (11): 2159-66, 2004.
3. Fleming GF, Filiaci VL, Bentley RC, et al.: Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 15 (8): 1173-8, 2004.
4. Arimoto T, Nakagawa S, Yasugi T, et al.: Treatment with paclitaxel plus carboplatin, alone or with irradiation, of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 104 (1): 32-5, 2007.
5. Sovak MA, Hensley ML, Dupont J, et al.: Paclitaxel and carboplatin in the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk stage III and IV endometrial cancer: a retrospective study. Gynecol Oncol 103 (2): 451-7, 2006.
6. Hoskins PJ, Swenerton KD, Pike JA, et al.: Paclitaxel and carboplatin, alone or with irradiation, in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 19 (20): 4048-53, 2001.
7. Pectasides D, Xiros N, Papaxoinis G, et al.: Carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 109 (2): 250-4, 2008.
8. Nomura H, Aoki D, Takahashi F, et al.: Randomized phase II study comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin, docetaxel plus carboplatin, and paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study (JGOG2041). Ann Oncol 22 (3): 636-42, 2011.
9. Dimopoulos MA, Papadimitriou CA, Georgoulias V, et al.: Paclitaxel and cisplatin in advanced or recurrent carcinoma of the endometrium: long-term results of a phase II multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 78 (1): 52-7, 2000.
10. Lentz SS: Advanced and recurrent endometrial carcinoma: hormonal therapy. Semin Oncol 21 (1): 100-6, 1994.

Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

For patients with localized recurrences (pelvis and periaortic lymph nodes) or distant metastases in selected sites, radiation therapy may be an effective palliative therapy. In rare instances, pelvic radiation therapy may be curative in pure vaginal recurrence when no prior radiation therapy has been used. Patients positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors respond best to progestin therapy. Among 115 patients with advanced endometrial cancer who were treated with progestins, 75% (42 of 56 patients) of those with detectable progesterone receptors in their tumors before treatment responded, compared with only 7% without detectable progesterone receptors (4 of 59 patients).[1] A receptor-poor status may predict not only poor response to progestins but also a better response to cytotoxic chemotherapy.[2] Evidence suggests that tamoxifen (20 mg twice a day) will give a response rate of 20% in those who do not respond to standard progesterone therapy.[3]

Several randomized trials by the Gynecologic Oncology Group have utilized the known antitumor activity of doxorubicin. The addition of cisplatin to doxorubicin increased response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) over doxorubicin alone but without an effect on overall survival (OS).[4] However, in a trial conducted in a subset of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement, the use of the combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in improved OS compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval limits, 0.52–0.89; P = .02; 5-year survival rate of 55% vs. 42%).[5][Level of evidence: 1iiA] In a subsequent trial, paclitaxel with doxorubicin had a similar outcome to cisplatin with doxorubicin.[6,7] The three-drug regimen (doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, however, was significantly superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin: response rates were 57% versus 34%, PFS was 8.3 months versus 5.3 months, and OS was 15.3 months versus 12.3 months, respectively. The superior regimen was associated with a 12% grade 3 and a 27% grade 2 peripheral neuropathy.[6,7][Level of evidence: 1iiDiv]

Clinical trials are appropriate for patients whose disease recurs with distant metastases and who are unresponsive to hormonal therapy.[8] Doxorubicin is the most active anticancer agent employed, with useful but temporary responses obtained in as many as 33% of patients with metastatic disease. Paclitaxel, in combination with platinums or as a single agent, also has significant activity.[9]

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's list of cancer clinical trials that are now accepting patients with recurrent endometrial carcinoma. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site.

References:

1. Kauppila A: Oestrogen and progestin receptors as prognostic indicators in endometrial cancer. A review of the literature. Acta Oncol 28 (4): 561-6, 1989.
2. Kauppila A, Friberg LG: Hormonal and cytotoxic chemotherapy for endometrial carcinoma. Steroid receptors in the selection of appropriate therapy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 101: 59-64, 1981.
3. Quinn MA, Campbell JJ: Tamoxifen therapy in advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 32 (1): 1-3, 1989.
4. Thigpen JT, Brady MF, Homesley HD, et al.: Phase III trial of doxorubicin with or without cisplatin in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 22 (19): 3902-8, 2004.
5. Randall ME, Filiaci VL, Muss H, et al.: Randomized phase III trial of whole-abdominal irradiation versus doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 24 (1): 36-44, 2006.
6. Fleming GF, Brunetto VL, Cella D, et al.: Phase III trial of doxorubicin plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel plus filgrastim in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 22 (11): 2159-66, 2004.
7. Fleming GF, Filiaci VL, Bentley RC, et al.: Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 15 (8): 1173-8, 2004.
8. Cornelison TL, Baker TR, Piver MS, et al.: Cisplatin, adriamycin, etoposide, megestrol acetate versus melphalan, 5-fluorouracil, medroxyprogesterone acetate in the treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 59 (2): 243-8, 1995.
9. Ball HG, Blessing JA, Lentz SS, et al.: A phase II trial of paclitaxel in patients with advanced or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 62 (2): 278-81, 1996.

Changes to This Summary (06 / 14 / 2013)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

General Information About Endometrial Cancer

Revised text to state that cancer of the endometrium is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, and irregular vaginal bleeding is an early sign and foremost symptom of the highly curable endometrial tumor.

Revised text to state that although the collection of cytology specimen is still suggested, a positive result does not upstage the disease.

Stage Information for Endometrial Cancer

Added text to state that Féderation Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stages are further subdivided by the histologic grade of the tumor, for example, stage IC G2.

Treatment Option Overview

Added text to state that the results of a study by the Danish Endometrial Cancer Group also suggest that the absence of radiation does not improve the survival of patients with stage I, intermediate-risk disease (cited Bertelsen et al. as reference 4).

Revised text to state that vaginal cuff brachytherapy is associated with less radiation-related morbidity than is external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and has been shown to be equivalent to EBRT in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage I disease (cited Nout et al. as reference 5). A subset of patients with stage I disease are at a high risk of recurrence and are eligible for adjuvant therapy; however, most patients will do well with surgery alone.

Stage I Endometrial Cancer

Added text to state that results of a study by the Danish Endometrial Cancer Group also suggest that the absence of radiation does not improve the survival of patients with stage I, intermediate-risk disease (cited Bertelsen et al. as reference 9).

Added text to state that the PORTEC-2 trial randomly assigned patients with stage I endometrial cancer who did not undergo lymph node dissection to undergo vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) or EBRT, with prevention of vaginal recurrence as the primary outcome. At 5 years, there was no difference in the rates of vaginal recurrence, locoregional recurrence, progression-free survival, or overall survival (OS), for VBT and EBRT, respectively; however, there were significantly fewer gastrointestinal toxic effects in the VBT group, making VBT the preferred option for adjuvant treatment in patients with stage I disease (cited Nout et al. as reference 10 and level of evidence 1iA).

Stage III Endometrial Cancer

Added text to state that patients with stage III endometrial cancer are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, or both. In a trial conducted in a subset of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement, the use of the combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in improved OS compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy (cited Randall et al. as reference 1 and level of evidence 1iiA).

Added text to state that a subsequent trial of paclitaxel with doxorubicin had an outcome similar to that of cisplatin with doxorubicin, and that the three-drug regimen with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was significantly superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin (cited Fleming et al. [Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004] as reference 2 and Fleming et al. [Annals of Oncology 2004] as reference 3 and level of evidence 1iiDiv).

Added text to state that several observational studies (cited Arimoto et al. and Sovak et al. as references 4 and 5, respectively) and phase II studies (cited Hoskins et al., Pectasides et al., Nomura et al., and Dimopoulos et al. as references 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively) suggested clinical activity with the combination of platinums and paclitaxel in endometrial cancer patients with measurable disease either following primary surgery or at recurrence. The Gynecologic Oncology Group's GOG-0209 trial compared the combination of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel (TAP) and G-CSF with carboplatin and paclitaxel; the interim results showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel is not inferior to TAP, lending credence to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel as the standard for adjuvant treatment in stage III and IV disease.

Added text to state that patients with inoperable disease caused by tumor that extends to the pelvic wall may be treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, which is usually a combination of intracavitary radiation therapy and EBRT.

Added text to include the use of biological agents alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, as a treatment option under clinical evaluation.

Stage IV Endometrial Cancer

Added text to state that observational studies support maximal cytoreductive surgery for patients with stage IV disease, although these conclusions need to be interpreted with care because of the small number of cases and likely selection bias.

Added text to state that when possible, patients with stage IV endometrial cancer are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, or both. In a trial conducted in a subset of patients with stage III or IV disease with residual tumors smaller than 2 cm and no parenchymal organ involvement, the use of the combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin resulted in improved OS compared with whole-abdominal radiation therapy (cited Randall et al. as reference 1 and level of evidence 1iiA).

Added text to state that a subsequent trial of paclitaxel with doxorubicin had a similar outcome to cisplatin with doxorubicin, adding that the three-drug regimen with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was significantly superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin (cited Fleming et al. [Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004] as reference 2 and Fleming et al. [Annals of Oncology 2004] as reference 3 and level of evidence 1iiDiv).

Added text to state that several observational studies (cited Arimoto et al. and Sovak et al. as references 4 and 5, respectively) and phase II studies (cited Hoskins et al., Pectasides et al., Nomura et al., and Dimopoulos et al. as references 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively) suggested clinical activity with the combination of platinums and paclitaxel in endometrial cancer patients with measurable disease either following primary surgery or at recurrence. The Gynecologic Oncology Group's GOG-0209 trial compared the combination of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel (TAP) and G-CSF with carboplatin and paclitaxel; the interim results showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel is not inferior to TAP, lending credence to the use of carboplatin and paclitaxel as the standard for adjuvant treatment in stage III and IV disease.

Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

Revised text to state that paclitaxel, in combination with platinums or as a single agent, also has significant activity.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ NCI's Comprehensive Cancer Database pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of endometrial cancer. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Endometrial Cancer Treatment are:

  • Leslie R. Boyd, MD (New York University Medical Center)
  • Franco M. Muggia, MD (New York University Medical Center)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the Web site's Contact Form. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as "NCI's PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary]."

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

National Cancer Institute: PDQ® Endometrial Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Date last modified <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/endometrial/HealthProfessional. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>.

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either "standard" or "under clinical evaluation." These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Coping with Cancer: Financial, Insurance, and Legal Information page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov Web site can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the Web site's Contact Form.

Get More Information From NCI

Call 1-800-4-CANCER

For more information, U.S. residents may call the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237) Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time. A trained Cancer Information Specialist is available to answer your questions.

Chat online

The NCI's LiveHelp® online chat service provides Internet users with the ability to chat online with an Information Specialist. The service is available from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Information Specialists can help Internet users find information on NCI Web sites and answer questions about cancer.

Write to us

For more information from the NCI, please write to this address:

NCI Public Inquiries Office
9609 Medical Center Dr.
Room 2E532 MSC 9760
Bethesda, MD 20892-9760

Search the NCI Web site

The NCI Web site provides online access to information on cancer, clinical trials, and other Web sites and organizations that offer support and resources for cancer patients and their families. For a quick search, use the search box in the upper right corner of each Web page. The results for a wide range of search terms will include a list of "Best Bets," editorially chosen Web pages that are most closely related to the search term entered.

There are also many other places to get materials and information about cancer treatment and services. Hospitals in your area may have information about local and regional agencies that have information on finances, getting to and from treatment, receiving care at home, and dealing with problems related to cancer treatment.

Find Publications

The NCI has booklets and other materials for patients, health professionals, and the public. These publications discuss types of cancer, methods of cancer treatment, coping with cancer, and clinical trials. Some publications provide information on tests for cancer, cancer causes and prevention, cancer statistics, and NCI research activities. NCI materials on these and other topics may be ordered online or printed directly from the NCI Publications Locator. These materials can also be ordered by telephone from the Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).

Last Revised: 2013-06-14

This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. How this information was developed to help you make better health decisions.

Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.

Symptom Checker

Feeling under the weather?

Use our interactive symptom checker to evaluate your symptoms and determine appropriate action or treatment.

Decision Points

Our interactive Decision Points guide you through making key health decisions by combining medical information with your personal information.

You'll find Decision Points to help you answer questions about: