Comparison of Different Lymph Node Staging Schemes for Predicting Survival Outcomes in Node-Positive Endometrioid Endometrial Cancer Patients.

To compare the prognostic predictive performance of six lymph node (LN) staging schemes: American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) N stage, number of retrieved lymph nodes (NRLN), number of positive lymph nodes (NPLN), number of negative lymph nodes (NNLN), lymph node ratio (LNR), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) among node-positive endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) patients. A total of 3,533 patients diagnosed with node-positive EEC between 2010 and 2016 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were retrospectively analyzed. We applied X-tile software to identify the optimal cutoff value for different staging schemes. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to assess the relationships between different LN schemes and survival outcomes [disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS)]. Moreover, Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell concordance index (C-index) were used to evaluate the predictive performance of each scheme in both continuous and categorical patterns. N stage (N1/N2) was not an independent prognostic factor for node-positive EEC patients based on multivariate analysis (DSS: = 0.235; OS: = 0.145). Multivariate model incorporating LNR demonstrated the most superior goodness of fit regardless of continuous or categorical pattern. Regarding discrimination power of the models, LNR outperformed other models in categorical pattern (OS: C-index = 0.735; DSS: C-index = 0.737); however, LODDS obtained the highest C-index in continuous pattern (OS: 0.736; DSS: 0.739). N stage (N1/N2) was unable to differentiate the prognosis for node-positive EEC patients in our study. However, LNR and LODDS schemes seemed to have a better predictive performance for these patients than other number-based LN schemes whether in DSS or OS, which revealed that LNR and LODDS should be more helpful in prognosis assessment for node-positive EEC patients than AJCC N stage.