Endometrial and Cervical Malignancies in the Postmenopausal Population: Clinicopathologic Correlation and Survival Outcomes
Keywords:
Postmenopausal women, endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, clinicopathologic correlation, survival outcomes, gynecologic oncologyAbstract
Background:Endometrial and cervical cancers collectively represent a substantial proportion of gynecologic malignancies worldwide, with a disproportionately high burden among postmenopausal women. Aging-related hormonal changes, metabolic disorders, and delayed symptom recognition contribute to late-stage diagnosis and variability in prognosis. While endometrial cancer is typically associated with unopposed estrogen exposure and metabolic syndrome, cervical cancer remains strongly linked to persistent high-risk HPV infection, inadequate screening coverage, and socioeconomic disparities. These cancers differ markedly in their biology, stage distribution, treatment responsiveness, and survival outcomes; however, literature specifically focusing on postmenopausal women remains limited despite their distinct risk profile and therapeutic challenges. Understanding these malignancies within this demographic is crucial for tailoring early detection strategies, improving prognostic modeling, and optimizing treatment.
Objective:This review aims to integrate contemporary evidence on clinicopathologic features, histologic heterogeneity, prognostic markers, and survival outcomes of endometrial and cervical cancers in postmenopausal women, while comparing their biological behavior, stage patterns, treatment modalities, and determinants of survival.
Methods:A systematic review of studies published between 2015 and 2024 was performed using major scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). Eligible studies included observational, cohort, and registry-based analyses that reported demographic data, tumor characteristics, staging, treatment, and survival outcomes specific to postmenopausal patients. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers, summarized narratively, and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis where applicable. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.
Results:Twenty-eight studies encompassing 19,874 postmenopausal women were included. For endometrial cancer, early-stage diagnosis predominated and overall survival remained relatively favorable, though significantly diminished in aggressive histologic subtypes such as serous carcinoma and carcinosarcoma. In contrast, cervical cancer in postmenopausal women was frequently diagnosed at advanced stages, with suboptimal survival due to delayed presentation and reduced treatment accessibility. Shared determinants of survival included age, tumor stage, lymphovascular space invasion, lymph node status, and timely initiation of therapy. Despite advances in diagnostics and therapeutics, considerable heterogeneity exists in reporting outcomes specific to postmenopausal women.
Conclusion:Endometrial and cervical cancers among postmenopausal women exhibit unique epidemiologic and biologic traits, yet their prognostic trajectories converge around stage, grade, and comorbidities. Targeted screening, molecular risk stratification, improved access to treatment, and standardized menopausal-specific reporting are essential to improving survival. Strengthening global prevention programs—such as HPV vaccination and metabolic risk reduction—can significantly reduce disease burden.
Downloads
References
Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E. Endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2016;387(10023):1094–1108.
PMID: 26354523 — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0
Lu KH, Broaddus RR. Endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(21):2053–2064.
PMID: 33211927 — doi:10.1056/NEJMra1514010
Bokhman JV. Two pathogenetic types of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1983;15(1):10–17.
PMID: 6822361 — doi:10.1016/0090-8258(83)90111-7
Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67–73.
PMID: 23636398 — doi:10.1038/nature12113
McAlpine JN, Talhouk A, et al. Molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma: The potential value of genomic taxonomy. J Pathol. 2018;244(5):538–549.
PMID: 29485282 — doi:10.1002/path.5030
Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31(1):12–39.
PMID: 33397730 — doi:10.1136/ijgc-2020-002230
Lindemann K, Malander S, Christensen IJ, et al. Poor prognosis associated with serous and clear cell endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(3):617–623.
PMID: 31174952 — doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.05.032
Murali R, Soslow RA, Weigelt B. Classification of endometrial carcinoma: recent advances and practical issues. Pathology. 2014;46(5):405–417.
PMID: 24950479 — doi:10.1097/PAT.0000000000000126
Zakhour M, Cohen JG, Sood AK, et al. Serous endometrial carcinoma: aggressive biology and new treatment strategies. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;159(3):726–732.
PMID: 32921334 — doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.08.033
Wortman BG, Bosse T, Creutzberg CL. Impact of histopathologic factors in endometrial cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(9):83.
PMID: 31359217 — doi:10.1007/s11912-019-0825-y
Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO consensus on endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26(1):2–30.
PMID: 26579015 — doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000609
Todo Y, Kato H, Minobe S, et al. Lymphovascular space invasion as prognostic factor in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(3):541–545.
PMID: 24503050 — doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.038
Koskas M, Amant F, Mirza MR, et al. Prognostic factors in endometrial cancer: review. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(12):e549–e560.
PMID: 34800325 — doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00467-9
Felix AS, Weissfeld JL, Stone RA, et al. Factors associated with Type II endometrial cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(17):3927–3935.
PMID: 20564105 — doi:10.1002/cncr.25289
Hamilton CA, Cheung MK, Osann K, et al. Uterine serous carcinoma: Stage distribution and survival. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103(3):643–648.
PMID: 16860852 — doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.04.023
Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Global burden of cervical cancer. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(2):e191–e203.
PMID: 31812369 — doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6
Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):169–182.
PMID: 30638582 — doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32470-X
Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune K. Cervical cancer screening in older women. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013;40(2):287–297.
PMID: 23732029 — doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2013.03.006
Sharma C, Deutsch I, Guttmann DM, et al. Comparative outcomes of adenocarcinoma vs squamous cervical cancer. Cancer. 2018;124(1):55–63.
PMID: 28940737 — doi:10.1002/cncr.30951
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. FIGO staging (2019) for cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129–138.
PMID: 30632280 — doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749
Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. Concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(15):1144–1153.
PMID: 10202165 — doi:10.1056/NEJM199904153401502
Sharma DN, Rath GK, et al. Delays in cervical cancer treatment increase mortality. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(36):4443–4449.
PMID: 27937092 — doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.6684
Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, et al. Adenocarcinoma vs squamous cervical cancer survival. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;36(3):370–378.
PMID: 2303962 — doi:10.1016/0090-8258(90)90141-W
Doorbar J. HPV biology and carcinogenesis. J Clin Virol. 2020;128:104352.
PMID: 31627146 — doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104352
Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer burden: cervical cancer trends. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.
PMID: 25651787 — doi:10.3322/caac.21262
Ward KK, Roncancio AM, Shah NR, et al. The impact of age on survival of women with endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):140.e1–140.e7.
PMID: 24246744 — doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.11.012
Cimbak N, Price RS, et al. Cervical cancer in women older than 65 years: increasing incidence. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(1):13–19.
PMID: 31611036 — doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.004
Marnitz S, Tsikouras P, Gitas G, et al. Cervical cancer in older women: treatment challenges. Climacteric. 2021;24(3):235–243.
PMID: 33397340 — doi:10.1080/13697137.2020.1868690
Bergmark K, Avall-Lundqvist E, Dickman PW, et al. Quality of life after gynecologic cancer treatment. Cancer. 1999;85(3):765–776.
PMID: 10091734 — doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990201)85:3<765::AID-CNCR24>3.0.CO;2-2
Stelloo E, Nout RA, Osse EM, et al. Refining risk stratification in endometrial cancer using molecular classification. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(20):2304–2312.
PMID: 27114662 — doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.9515
León-Castillo A, de Boer SM, Powell ME, et al. Molecular classification improves prognostic accuracy of endometrial cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(2):273–284.
PMID: 31981688 — doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30797-X
Talhouk A, McConechy MK, Leung S, et al. A clinically applicable molecular-based classification for endometrial cancers. Br J Cancer. 2015;113(2):299–310.
PMID: 26172028 — doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.190
Singh N, Gilks CB. p53 Abnormality as a key classifier in gynecologic cancers. Histopathology. 2021;78(4):567–580.
PMID: 33026152 — doi:10.1111/his.14310
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249.
PMID: 33538338 — doi:10.3322/caac.21660
Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, et al. Global cancer transitions 1990–2016. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(8):1023–1036.
PMID: 29960763 — doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30324-7.
-.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

