Clinical Implications of Incorporating Molecular Profiles into the Staging of Endometrial Cancer: A Critical Review of the 2023 FIGO System on the Wave of 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines

This review examines the clinical and practical implications of embedding molecular profiles directly into the 2023 FIGO staging system for endometrial carcinoma, in the context of the 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. The primary purpose is to navigate a central conflict in modern oncology: how to deliver increasingly personalized care while maintaining a globally accessible, equitable, and standardized cancer classification system. The 2023 FIGO update represents a paradigm shift from the traditional dualistic model (Type I versus Type II) by allowing molecular findings to redefine stage itself. While this integration offers clear benefits, it introduces significant challenges. First, the system depends on advanced molecular testing, creating a “rich-poor” divide where patients in resource-limited settings are systematically overtreated because testing is unavailable. Second, stage becomes unstable, changing with sequential histologic and molecular re-review, which causes confusion for patients and clinicians. Third, the system lumps prognostically distinct histotypes (Serous, Clear Cell, Carcinosarcoma, and Grade 3 Endometrioid) into a single aggressive stage, obscuring meaningful differences in survival. Fourth, it relies on subjective parameters such as “substantial” lymphovascular space invasion, for which no standardized definition exists, leading to high inter-observer variability. After analyzing these controversies, the review proposes a pragmatic solution: decouple anatomical staging from molecular risk stratification. Staging should remain a purely anatomical, universally applicable descriptor of tumor extent, while molecular and histologic data are used separately within a dynamic risk assessment model, as suggested by the European guidelines. This dual-track approach preserves global comparability, reduces inequity, and maintains diagnostic stability, while still enabling personalized treatment where advanced diagnostics are available.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18172748
Primary Topic
Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Implications of Incorporating Molecular Profiles into the Staging of Endometrial Cancer: A Critical Review of the 2023 FIGO System on the Wave of 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines

Giuseppe Angelico, Livia Macciò, Angela Santoro, Gian Franco Zannoni et al.
Cancers
Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
article

Clinical Implications of Incorporating Molecular Profiles into the Staging of Endometrial Cancer: A Critical Review of the 2023 FIGO System on the Wave of 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines

Giuseppe Angelico, Livia Macciò, Angela Santoro, Gian Franco Zannoni, Emma Bragantini, Antonio d’Amati, Anna Fagotti, Francesco Fanfani
article en

Abstract

This review examines the clinical and practical implications of embedding molecular profiles directly into the 2023 FIGO staging system for endometrial carcinoma, in the context of the 2025 ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines. The primary purpose is to navigate a central conflict in modern oncology: how to deliver increasingly personalized care while maintaining a globally accessible, equitable, and standardized cancer classification system. The 2023 FIGO update represents a paradigm shift from the traditional dualistic model (Type I versus Type II) by allowing molecular findings to redefine stage itself. While this integration offers clear benefits, it introduces significant challenges. First, the system depends on advanced molecular testing, creating a “rich-poor” divide where patients in resource-limited settings are systematically overtreated because testing is unavailable. Second, stage becomes unstable, changing with sequential histologic and molecular re-review, which causes confusion for patients and clinicians. Third, the system lumps prognostically distinct histotypes (Serous, Clear Cell, Carcinosarcoma, and Grade 3 Endometrioid) into a single aggressive stage, obscuring meaningful differences in survival. Fourth, it relies on subjective parameters such as “substantial” lymphovascular space invasion, for which no standardized definition exists, leading to high inter-observer variability. After analyzing these controversies, the review proposes a pragmatic solution: decouple anatomical staging from molecular risk stratification. Staging should remain a purely anatomical, universally applicable descriptor of tumor extent, while molecular and histologic data are used separately within a dynamic risk assessment model, as suggested by the European guidelines. This dual-track approach preserves global comparability, reduces inequity, and maintains diagnostic stability, while still enabling personalized treatment where advanced diagnostics are available.

CancersVol. 18(17)
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT), University of Ferrara (IT), Università degli Studi di Enna Kore (IT), Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT), Ospedale di Bolzano (IT)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.