Angela Santoro, Giuseppe Angelico, Antonio d'Amati, Livia Maccio, Emma Bragantini, Francesco Fanfani, Anna Fagotti, Gian Franco Zannoni
Integration of molecular classification modified adjuvant treatment in approximately one fifth of patients. Changes were biologically consistent, supporting the feasibility and clinical utility of molecularly integrated MDT decision making in early-stage endometrial cancer even in resource-constrained settings.
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.