Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecological malignancy in Western countries. Although international guidelines recommend that patients with EC be treated at specialized oncology centers, many are still managed by general gynecologists. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of facility volume on treatment strategies and survival outcomes among EC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study comparing 971 patients with EC treated at medium-volume centers (CVMs) (11–29 cases/year) with 1431 patients treated at high-volume centers (CVAs) (≥30 cases/year). Patient characteristics were recorded, including age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, comorbidities, surgical approach, lymphadenectomy, total number of lymph nodes removed, number of positive lymph nodes, length of hospital stay, histological characteristics, ESMO-ESGO (European Society for Medical Oncology–European Society of Gynaecological Oncology) classification system, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Postoperative fever, hemoglobin changes, and blood transfusions were also reported. Results: Compared with patients treated at the MVCs, patients treated at the HVCs were younger (mean age, 65 vs. 66.4 years, p = 0.03) and had a lower rate of comorbidities (41% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). Patients treated at HVCs were mostly in higher ESMO-ESGO recurrence risk classes (p < 0.001), were treated mostly laparoscopically (58% vs. 47%, p < 0.001) and had better staging (higher number of lymph nodes harvested (mean 19 vs. 11, p < 0.001) and more peritoneal biopsies performed (27% vs. 14%, p < 0.001). HVC patients had fewer complications and received less adjuvant therapy (40% vs. 50%, p < 0.001) but, when treated, received chemotherapy more frequently, showed mostly loco-regional recurrences (34% vs. 14%) and fewer extra-abdominal recurrences (34% vs. 54%). HVC patients had better PFS and OS. Center volume was found to be an independent factor influencing PFS in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: All EC patients should be centrally managed to receive superior treatment to improve postoperative recovery and oncological outcomes, particularly for patients with more-aggressive tumors.
Impact of Facility Volume on Therapy and Survival for Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study / Dario Mandato, Vincenzo; Myriam Perrone, Anna; Pirillo, Debora; Ciarlini, Gino; Annunziata, Gianluca; Arena, Alessandro; Alboni, Carlo; Di Monte, Ilaria; Capozzi, Vito Andrea; Amadori, Andrea; Martinello, Ruby; Rosati, Federica; 9, Marco Stefanetti; Palicelli, Andrea; Santandre, Giacomo; Seracchioli, Renato; Berretta, Roberto; Aguzzoli, Lorenzo; Torricelli And Pierandrea De Iaco, Federica. - In: CANCERS. - ISSN 2072-6694. - (2026).
Impact of Facility Volume on Therapy and Survival for Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Vito Andrea Capozzi;Roberto Berretta;
2026-01-01
Abstract
Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecological malignancy in Western countries. Although international guidelines recommend that patients with EC be treated at specialized oncology centers, many are still managed by general gynecologists. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of facility volume on treatment strategies and survival outcomes among EC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter study comparing 971 patients with EC treated at medium-volume centers (CVMs) (11–29 cases/year) with 1431 patients treated at high-volume centers (CVAs) (≥30 cases/year). Patient characteristics were recorded, including age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, comorbidities, surgical approach, lymphadenectomy, total number of lymph nodes removed, number of positive lymph nodes, length of hospital stay, histological characteristics, ESMO-ESGO (European Society for Medical Oncology–European Society of Gynaecological Oncology) classification system, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Postoperative fever, hemoglobin changes, and blood transfusions were also reported. Results: Compared with patients treated at the MVCs, patients treated at the HVCs were younger (mean age, 65 vs. 66.4 years, p = 0.03) and had a lower rate of comorbidities (41% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). Patients treated at HVCs were mostly in higher ESMO-ESGO recurrence risk classes (p < 0.001), were treated mostly laparoscopically (58% vs. 47%, p < 0.001) and had better staging (higher number of lymph nodes harvested (mean 19 vs. 11, p < 0.001) and more peritoneal biopsies performed (27% vs. 14%, p < 0.001). HVC patients had fewer complications and received less adjuvant therapy (40% vs. 50%, p < 0.001) but, when treated, received chemotherapy more frequently, showed mostly loco-regional recurrences (34% vs. 14%) and fewer extra-abdominal recurrences (34% vs. 54%). HVC patients had better PFS and OS. Center volume was found to be an independent factor influencing PFS in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: All EC patients should be centrally managed to receive superior treatment to improve postoperative recovery and oncological outcomes, particularly for patients with more-aggressive tumors.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
