» Articles » PMID: 38201310

Sonographic, Demographic, and Clinical Characteristics of Pre- and Postmenopausal Women with Endometrial Cancer; Results from a Post Hoc Analysis of the IETA4 (International Endometrial Tumor Analysis) Multicenter Cohort

Abstract

In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of demographic, histopathological, and sonographic characteristics between pre- and postmenopausal women diagnosed with endometrial cancer, while also examining sonographic and anthropometric features in 'low' and 'intermediate/high-risk' cases, stratified by menopausal status. Our analysis, based on data from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) 4 cohort comprising 1538 women (161 premenopausal, 1377 postmenopausal) with biopsy-confirmed endometrial cancer, revealed that premenopausal women, compared to their postmenopausal counterparts, exhibited lower parity (median 1, IQR 0-2 vs. 1, IQR 1-2, = 0.001), a higher family history of colon cancer (16% vs. 7%, = 0.001), and smaller waist circumferences (median 92 cm, IQR 82-108 cm vs. 98 cm, IQR 87-112 cm, = 0.002). Premenopausal women more often had a regular endometrial-myometrial border (39% vs. 23%, < 0.001), a visible endometrial midline (23% vs. 11%, < 0.001), and undefined tumor (73% vs. 84%, 0.001). Notably, despite experiencing a longer duration of abnormal uterine bleeding (median 5 months, IQR 3-12 vs. 3 months, 2-6, < 0.001), premenopausal women more often had 'low' risk disease (78% vs. 46%, < 0.001). Among sonographic and anthropometric features, only an irregular endometrial-myometrial border was associated with 'intermediate/high' risk in premenopausal women. Conversely, in postmenopausal women, multiple features correlated with 'intermediate/high' risk disease. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering menopausal status when evaluating sonographic features in women with endometrial cancer.

References
1.
Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B . Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019; 567(7748):305-307. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9. View

2.
Tsuda H, Ito Y, Todo Y, Iba T, Tasaka K, Sutou Y . Measurement of endometrial thickness in premenopausal women in office gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2018; 17(1):29-35. PMC: 5768977. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12062. View

3.
Dirnagl U . The p value wars (again). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46(12):2421-2423. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-019-04467-5. View

4.
Arem H, Irwin M . Obesity and endometrial cancer survival: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012; 37(5):634-9. PMC: 3774112. DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2012.94. View

5.
Hernandez A, Pasupuleti V, Benites-Zapata V, Thota P, Deshpande A, Perez-Lopez F . Insulin resistance and endometrial cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51(18):2747-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.08.031. View