Czy zamienne stosowanie klasyfikacji zaawansowania nowotworów endometrium wed ug Mi dzynarodowej Federacji Ginekologów i Po o ników z 1988 roku i z 2009 roku mo e prowadzi do istotnych pomy ek klinicznych?

Introduction: Since 2009 the new FIGO Staging System of endometrial cancer, which changed the previousFIGO 1988 Staging System, has been present. Unfortunately, parallel use of both classifications is observed.Aim of study: to assess whether parallel use of the 2009 and the 1988 FIGO staging systems can causesignificant therapeutic mistakes in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer.Material and methods: We analysed 262 patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. The endometrialcancers were staged in both classifications. We analysed possible therapeutic mistakes caused by diverse nomenclature.Results: The patients at low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk for relapse were presented in: 110 (41.6%),109 (42.0%) and 43 (16.4%) cases, respectively. The possibility of inappropriate qualification for adjuvant treatmentoccurred in 102 patients (38.9%) if they were staged in the FIGO 1988 classification and interpreted as theFIGO 2009 classification, and similarly, in 65 patients (24.8%) if they were staged in the FIGO 2009 classificationand interpreted as the FIGO 1988 classification. The risk of a decision mistake in terms of the adjuvant treatmentdue to diverse nomenclature was observed commonly in 167 patients (63.7%).Conclusions: The common use of both FIGO staging systems for endometrioid endometrial cancer cancause significant therapeutic mistakes in terms of the adjuvant treatment. There is a need to use only the newFIGO 2009 Staging System for endometrial cancer and stop using the FIGO 1988 Staging System to avoid therapeuticmistakes.